|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Erick Wilson wrote:
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!"
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:
There we go. Based on this version of the tale, is the GM worthy of being called a bad GM?
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.
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.
The Fox wrote:
Matt, what is an appropriate benchmark?
I would say take the Core pregens and let them be the benchmark.
The campaign staff believes that the power level of the campaign's opposition is at a level such that a player playing a pregen should and will have a good time, making them the best thing PFS has, and a very appropriate thing, for players to compare their characters to.
I have learned that the Paizo board wisdom often focuses way too much on optimization for combat effectiveness, and following such wisdom is actually a bad thing in Pathfinder Society. That wisdom simply tries to maximize effectiveness, without paying consideration to the power level of the opponents. Since Pathfinder gets a lot less fun when overpowered characters are at the table, players who subscribe to that wisdom often harm the fun of the whole table.
I have learned that it's actually pretty tough, as a player, to build a PC that is of a "just right" power level. There is just so much variability of power level of the available material, from the Core to the splatbooks, that it's very easy to build an overpowered character "accidentally" instead of intentionally.
I have learned that it's very important to find a group of players and GMs who all have similar expectations about power level. Unfortunately, the nature of Pathfinder Society means that stable groups with aligned expectations will have trouble with a "public" campaign.
A scenario author's. This sounds like a great item for a Chronicle.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Yep, it's a very neat build, and I've been messing around with a few of them for a few minutes. I'm looking at it and I can't possibly deny that you can build for it if you spend enough feats and traits, but even then you've spent several additional feats and also your potentially-precious immediate action on Snake that you needn't spend on Crane, and Crane protects somewhat from all attacks whereas Snake only helps for the one.
It's worth noting that Crane Style requires you be attacking, while Snake does not. For this reason, Snake Style synergizes with the Antagonize feat, while Crane does not.
Snake Fang also can grant a ton of AOs, while Crane Riposte can only grant one.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
I'd be very interested in how many of the PFS GMs that complained about Crane Wing were actually complaining about characters with a MoMS dip that picked up the feat early.
Bingo. It is important to consider that Crane Wing and Master of Many Styles are two different things, a difference which often gets lost in the PFS environment where a character's foundations tend to be overlooked and the end results are what get all the attention.
In the PFS environment, it's easy to say "Whoa, he's deflecting attacks!" and ignore "He dipped Master of Many Styles and picked it up before he could have normally."
Are we going to be back here doing this again due to Masters of Many Styles who pick up Snake Fang early?
By the way, is the errata set in stone, or subject to change?
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
For the sake of those of us who have PFS characters who are affected by this change, and who are not allowed to retcon their decisions if Crane Wing changes again...
Can you give us a date for when the feat's text will be set in stone? What about a date for when the rules change takes effect for purposes of PFS? I would hate to retrain Crane Wing (Osyluth's Guile and Offensive Defense do what New Crane Wing does but better, in my case) then be unable to reverse the decision if it changes again.
Though I find the whole matter quite strange, I am beginning to understand the usefulness of these certifications. If it will assist the community, I would be glad to help by determining which members of the Society are proper aristocrats and which are merely poseurs.
Erik Mona wrote:
If Eyes were to be retired, a revised edition of Requiem of the Red Raven would make a great standalone product. It is the best thing PFS has ever done, and it really should be kept playable.
One thing that I have discovered is very tough about PFS is that Pathfinders really don't have very much to talk about, largely because just about everything we do have to talk about is deep in spoiler territory.
It's as if Fight Club decided to hold a company picnic.
Fortunately, we've got the faction boards to host discussions, but I can say from experience that it takes some effort to really make things move without any help from the spoiler-laden Golarion canon or the campaign's material. That being said, I can say that the Taldan Winter Masquerade thread has a solid number of posts and can serve as a proof-of-concept for aspiring organizers.
Would anybody be opposed to me starting an offshoot thread for unofficial IC organizations? That's an idea that I'm really interested in, but which is tangential to the focus of this thread.
I would be eager to see what sorts of ideas for organizations the community can come up with.
-Matt wonders what a Taldan aristocratic fraternal organization would look like.
DM Beckett wrote:
True, and I get that. The issue I'm starting to have is running out of things to run that a given group can mostly play for credit as we get new players. It tends to put the players that have played longer locked at 5th-7th as we wait for the new players to catch up more, which means we keep making new starter characters, and then getting up to 3rdish, and start over as even more new players come. The more we do that, the less options we can then play as a group, etc. . .
This here is pretty much the story of PFS. When new players keep coming in, and everyone is fully accommodated for (as in, no one replays for zero XP or plays a pregen), this is what happens.
If you want to get out of the low tiers, at some point, you'll just have to hold 5-9 and 7-11 tables, and the new players will have to either play a pregen or wait. If 5-9 never happens, then your group won't ever play it.
One of the ninja tricks would let him spend a ki point for darkvision, with a one-hour duration.
What other suggestions do we have out there?
Anything about the canon that the campaign deals with and the NPCs which live there.
In-character posts from the faction heads or Venture-Captains would be particularly great, as they would help us have a glimpse at the Golarion we're supposed to be experiencing, and give GMs and scenario authors some source material to base their versions of the NPCs on rather than constantly having to make up their personalities from scratch.
The Golarion sourcebooks like to focus on breadth at the expense of depth; a blog post is an excellent opportunity to add depth to the canon.
I'd relax the Run As Written rules, and dispel the overly-restrictive culture they create, allowing GMs' talents to really shine by GMing games which fit their individual talents and style, and allowing them to really tailor the play experience to their play groups.
Oh, and then I'd remove a bunch of stuff from Additional Resources so threads like this one happen less often. It's just so sad to see so many potential hours of play experiences be vaporized because of overpowered options, and how easy it would be to reduce that waste.
So that's two things.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Again, I think something beyond initiative is wrong if the fights are over in 1 round every time. Were the initiative monkeys both ranged martial classes?
Thing is, there has been enough powerful options introduced in the Pathfinder system that victories can occur during the first round of combat. It's kinda frustrating, and there's really nothing any of us can do about the issues with the available options. The only thing you can do is let the offending players know your frustration, and if they continue to frustrate you as a GM and/or drive players away, then their only solution is to not invite them to your tables.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
You need strong direct damage folks to take point, but it works really well. An optimized counterspeller can waste a ton of important enemy actions... not every time, but enough to really turn any fight just as it gets going.
I agree. What's also important is that an optimized counterspeller can be the one who negates the nastiest, most important enemy actions. So even if it doesn't come up often, it's a huge benefit to the party.
Though we kinda had to fill in the gaps in the rules, this seems like a fair and balanced way to run "temporary self-blindness."
My experience says that's not actually true. A full-attack with Blind-Fight going is often enough to just paste the thing with Images running. Basically, the tactic turns mirror image into displacement and then makes displacement an inferior defense to mirror image.
When you're looking at eight images, popping a couple of them is just slow compared to sucking up the virtual-25% miss chance and wailing away.
The "choose at the beginning of your turn" way, mirroring gaze attacks, that seems like a solid way to run it.
Kyle Baird wrote:
I once feared the Baird. Then I played at his Grand Melee table at PaizoCon 2011. I swapped out to a higher-level character upon learning of my GM's identity.
I had a great time. Some hot d20s helped me not die, as in multiple longsword crits in a full-attack hot. "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED???"
It's about that time, as we have two groups present for the first round of games. Remember that card that was enclosed in your invitations? It is now your starting hand for this game.
We will be playing an adaptation of the game Love Letter, a card game of wit and deduction. Here is how it is played...
In this game, each player represents an eligible suitor who wishes to court the elusive Princess of Taldor. In order to attract the Princess's attention, players attempt to have their letters of love delivered to her and read by her. However, since the Princess is very difficult to reach, the suitors have to rely on intermediaries to carry their messages to her.
During the game, you hold one card in your hand, which is always kept secret from the other players. This card represents the current holder of your letter. Your objective is to make sure that your letter is in the hands of the someone closer to the Princess than anyone else's intermediary when the round ends.
On each of your turns, you will receive one random card from the deck carried by the Master of Games. You will then have two cards in your hand. At this point, choose one of the two to play and return it to the Master of Games. The card's effect is then resolved, even if the effect is bad for you. All cards played will be made known to all of the competing players; this information assists with deducing which cards the other players might be holding. A list of all the cards in the deck held by the Master of Games, along with their quantities, is given below for your reference.
Certain cards will have the effect of removing a player from the round, as that player's letter is intercepted or destroyed. In that case, the card which was in that player's hand is made known to the remaining players. For the remainder of the round, the removed player cannot be chosen as a part of resolving other cards' effects.
A round ends when there are no more cards remaining in the deck held by the Master of Games at the end of a turn. At this point, the player holding the card representing the person closest to the Princess wins the round, as that person delivers the love letter to the Princess, who retires to her chambers to read it. A round also ends if there is only one player remaining.
Since this is a game of deduction, the details of the randomized deck of cards is known to all players. As mentioned above, each card represents a person in close proximity to the Princess, and each card carries with it an effect.
Note: At the beginning of each round, one card is secretly removed from the deck and hidden from all players. Thus, the deck for each round will contain fifteen of the sixteen cards.
The deck contains sixteen total cards, listed here in order from the farthest away to the closest to the Princess:
There you have it. I hope you enjoy this little game of wit and deduction. Best of luck to all of you. As always, feel free to PM me with questions or find me on the Paizo chat at chat.dmtools.org.
Cao Phen wrote:
We all know that all magus came from Minata. All of that training as a Wayang Spellhunter gave them the Magical Lineage to make their shocking grasps all the more poweful. In matter of fact, I think that the majority of spellcasters come from Minata...
That would explain where all the funny hats that Pathfinders wear come from, as well.
Good point! I saw that sort of thing happen all the time!
Mark Seifter wrote:
The Guide to Absalom book told me that casting invisibility is massively illegal in Absalom, punishable extremely harshly. We could use sources like that one if we wanted to answer that question.
Yeah, this is a question to be asked of the setting. Are there any other insights into how magic fits in Golarion's various cultures scattered throughout the sourcebooks?
If there are, it would be nice to see them placed in the Guide, or at least in the scenarios.
I keep thinking back to that one time my PC sat down to tea at a formal event with a paladin in full-plate, a barbarian with multiple reach weapons strapped to her back while at the dinner table, a druid who shed his armor out of respect to the host, and two synthesists in full power armor. The socially-acceptable use of magic question goes hand-in-hand with the socially-acceptable carrying of very large weapons (even loaded guns!) and mighty animal companions.
It would be nice to have some guidance on this issue.
Wearing armor or wielding a shield that you aren't proficient in, that causes an initiative penalty equal to its armor check penalty:
PRD Equipment entry wrote:
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
PRD Combat entry wrote:
Splint Mail and a Tower Shield would buy you -17 to initiative right there.