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

Mike J's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 143 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I can see how it makes sense to combine familiars and animal companions, because they are rather similar. However, you'll need to make some kind of adjustment (like Pathfinder does for Ranger) because Familiar < Animal Companion and without an adjustment, the classes will be unbalanced. A good place to start might be making the Familiar an Animal Companion with an Effective Level = Current Level-4 (like the Ranger) and see how that looks power-wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you've ever played regular Pathfinder from levels 1 through 6, you've played E6. All the same things apply. There is no "works best" for E6 (or there shouldn't be).

However, E6 often includes a boat-load of custom and capstone feats, that vary from game to game, GM to GM. Without knowing what those feats look like in the game you are playing, it will be hard to answer your question specifically. For example, in my E6 game there is a feat that allows the druid to advance their animal companion as if the druid were 8th level. Without that feat, the druid is not as appealing.

I'd recommend you pretend you are playing regular Pathfinder and pick your character based on that. After all, the first 6 levels of E6 are just regular Pathfinder. Also, try talking to the GM (since E6 is pretty GM-specific).


I think you are bringing up two different issues. One is a "non-issue", the other is worth discussing (I'd recommend privately).

The "non-issue" is the GM customizing the monsters. That shouldn't make any difference. So what if your knowledge check reveals a Skeleton has DR 50/slashing? As long as your slashing weapon is effective, no worries. Or if the GM reads that as "DR 50 against slashing" and your club still works great, also no worries. And if the GM customizes the monsters to make the game a TPK-fest, or not fun for the players, that will resolve itself pretty quickly.

The second issue boils down to is your group playing Pathfinder or My-Own-Game-But-I'm-Calling-It-Pathfinder(TM)? House rules are often part of the game, but they have to be known by everyone and applied consistently. You should discuss this with the GM and be prepared for the possibility that your GM and group, like many people, want to play their own game with the Pathfinder name slapped on it. Also be prepared for them wanting to make up the rules as they go along and change them when it suits them - that is also common.


I've had similar problems (attendance, cheating, lack of responsibility) to varying degrees in different groups. This will sound harsh, but it worked for me: Find different players who share your style of gaming.

It looks to me like you aren't having fun because you are being turned into a baby sitter (been there myself). If you players are friends, great - hang out with them, just don't play Pathfinder together. Don't lower your gaming standards because you think you can't find other players. You deserve to game with people who have a similar level of dedication and responsibility that you have. Trying to change your players beyond what you've done already is just inflicting pain on yourself and them. It is pretty clear, many of them want to game one way (nothing wrong with that) and you want to game another way.

Have you tried playing PFS as a way to find players? Many of the issues you are raising are simply not tolerated in PFS play - the players you will find there are used to playing by the rules, being prepared, etc.


Same deal for me too (including being able to get Ultimate Combat).


I've always taken the position that the PCs know more than the players in most cases. So I really play up the importance of monster lore knowledge checks. If you can even attempt the check, I give the monster's name and all type info associated with it (Zombie, undead). I let the players ask specifically about details in the type info rather than read it every time. I also have four levels of DCs ranging from CR+10 to CR+25, each giving more information, but a lot of it is fluff. At CR+15 and above, I allow one yes/no question about the monster's stats and abilities at each level (maximum 3 questions). Examples: Does it have DR? BAB more than 15? Touch AC less than 12? Resistant to fire?

To balance this out, PCs don't get to remember the results from the last check on the same type of monster and I don't allow metagaming. The result of each check is supposed to represent what the PC can remember at the time. If the PCs encounter some Skeletons and learn they have DR 5/bludgeoning and later encounter another group of Skeletons and don't learn about the DR, anyone suddenly choosing to use their spare bludgeoning weapon is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

It has worked well to keep the knowledge skills very relevant and strikes a good balance between the PCs know nothing relevant and the PCs know all.


As a GM who is currently preparing this book for my group, I have to echo what the others are saying.

Just because the areas are marked with the letter "D", doesn't make it a "starter zone", especially in a sandbox-style adventure like this one.

One of the dangers of a sandbox-style adventure is that the PCs can easily get in over their heads. PCs should be expecting this.

I can say that your GM does understand the adventure 100% and is playing out the encounter correctly given what has happened. I would second what Kelarith suggested and get more information about that ape, the area of the city, and so on. Clearly, there is something more going on than just a warrior ape.

As for advice on beating the encounter, all I can say is hang in there and do your best. You are facing a very, very hard encounter.


This looks like mistakes and the wrong expectations all the way around.

The GM should have known his PCs (priority number one). And should have been OK with the PCs' stomping his encounter - it happens and secretly, the GM should be on the players' side. Don't worry, an unexpected TPK will rear its ugly head sooner or later.

The players should be prepared for and accepting of GM errors in the moment. GMs play more unique characters in one game session than most players play in a year. On top of that, most are a one-shot deal, so GMs never get experienced with any of them. When it comes to playing monsters, GMs are basically "noobs". Expect plenty of mistakes.

As for retcons, doing one (uno, single, solo, lone) retcon every once in a while to save the gaming experience for everyone is OK (personally, I avoid them). Players should recognize that the retcon is so they aren't bored to tears due to GM error. GMs should recognize that frequent retcons foster player resentment because they feel (rightfully) targeted.

It sounded to me like both the GM and the player had a case of "GM vs PC" going to some degree. That's only going to make things worse.


This is a great tool and it has been really helpful for me! My group enjoys E6 and the published Adventure Paths which means lots of monster scaling (lowering CRs). Your tool does all the grunt work quite nicely. Sorry, I don't have examples to share because I don't usually complete every aspect of the monster - I have the program crunch the critical numbers and I move on.

Possible Bug: I did notice that adding Weapon Finesse as a feat does not change the attack values to use Dex instead of Str with natural weapons (I haven't built anything with manufactured weapons that had Weapon Finesse, so I'm not sure on that - that could get complicated given that only certain weapons apply).

Gold Plating: For my purposes, it would be awesome to be able to adjust HD rather than target CR. Even better if adjusting HD could be done "on the fly" so it doesn't wipe out everything else. When scaling monsters, having that kind of fine control is really nice, but not necessary.

Keep up the outstanding work!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had a few players who were notoriously slow - their turn would take several minutes if hounded and upwards of 30 minutes to an hour if left to their own devices (analysis paralysis, anyone?).

So, I adopted the 5 second/1 minute rule. Initiative is visible to everyone and I often have a player run it - they collect all the players' initiatives and setup the GameMastery Combat Pad so all I have to do is drop in the monsters. As a result, everyone knows the initiative in advance (I'm usually last to finish initiative with often 2+ groups of monsters).

When it is a player's turn, they have 5 seconds (I count in my head) to begin. If they sit and stare, so does their character and they get delayed one spot in the initiative (not a huge penalty). If someone is regularly very slow in finishing their turn (they figured out to start in 5 seconds and then sit and stare), I break out the 1-minute hourglass and flip it as soon as they start their turn. If they aren't wrapping things up by the time it runs out (making the last of the dice rolls, etc.), I back out what they've done (which isn't much - often just a move) and delay them.

I make the obvious exceptions for things like very high level play (where turns really do take several minutes to resolve) or something significant happening - a spellcaster drops a spell that entirely changes the battle or a bunch of monsters just went and changed everything. I also use my discretion as it is pretty easy to tell when someone has a lot to think about or when they are just stalling. Overall, it is extremely effective and the players know to be ready for their turn. Either way, the combat doesn't drag on.

I should also note that I allow and encourage a pre-battle "time-out" where the game is put on hold so the party can discuss tactics or whatever they need to figure out before combat begins. I also encourage combat "cheat sheets", especially for characters with lots of bonuses that aren't always on, like an Inquisitor.


I use them and hand them out as "rewards" for things like good role play and as story awards. The players tend to save them up until they really get into a jam or to prevent a death. The most common uses are on critical dice rolls like saves and to buy another action to take down particularly vicious monsters (kill it before it kills us). It is a really nice way to handle those "Oh crap" moments where luck went one way, the encounter was too hard, or the players were epicly stupid and still stay in game space.

However, I don't allow the spells, feats, and items associated with them as I want Hero Points to remain a benefit and not a dependable game mechanic. It wouldn't surprise me if many people using Hero Points feel the similarly which might explain the lack of response.


OP: I hear you, but this is how the world works. If you want to participate in organized play, you have to follow the rules, whatever those rules might be. However, you should recognize that PFS is one of the least expensive organized play events. Just compare to say any tabletop miniatures wargame, most of which don't allow proxies and you have to shell out for a $300+ army.

As for Linguistics, it might be just flavor to your particular character build, but to a character build that is going to cast lots of language-dependent enchantments, that +1 means another language which is the key to being effective against the maximum number of creatures. By the same token, for the character build I'm talking about, BAB is basically flavor.

My point being that in organized play where anyone can walk in off the street, the GMs can't afford to evaluate every character to determine if an exception is relevant to the build or not. There is also the problem of each GM making an individual call, which opens up the situation where something is valid at one table, but invalid at another. For organized play, that kind of thing can't be allowed to happen.

If you want to play PFS, you have to obey the PFS rules.


A high-magic, loot-heavy, E1 game with no spellcasters could be do-able. Instead of the characters progressing via feats or levels, they get more and more powerful magic items and/or gold. If Mythic progression was allowed it could get crazy. A level 1 Fighter with a bunch of major artifacts, max-out magic items (+10 etc.) and 10 Mythic Tiers might be kinda cool to play. Until something gets past his AC and does even minimal damage. Then, not so much.


As I understand it, the AP was written for 4 players with 15 points for ability scores using the purchase method. Assuming 6 players with 15 points, you really need to increase the CR of every encounter by 1. If you used 20 or 25 points for ability scores, that gives the players even more of an edge.

One easy way to make the encounters tougher without doing lots of work is to just give them maximum hit points. It won't help the single-monster encounters from getting slaughtered due to action economy. But it will help all the other encounters. I personally prefer adding and/or advancing monsters, but that can be a ton of work.

I agree with not using Mythic to "spice things up" unless your players are really saying "kill us all". A lot of the Mythic stuff will flatten a non-Mythic group.


I have to chime in with the pro-E6 crowd. I've GM'ed games of just about every level, many in the 8th-15th range. Personally, I like E6 the best mostly because it stays fast paced. High level play can get extremely boring when every player's turn takes over 15 minutes to resolve.

As already mentioned, everything remains relevant in E6 - every spell a caster has (besides 0-level) is no more than 2 levels below your best spells (aka still very relevant and very potent).

How the game will be for casters really depends on the E6 feats that are being used by the GM. I've included ones that increase caster level to 8th when casting spells as well as ones that allow additional spell slots and spells known. Add in the two additional Spell Focus feats and you've got 3rd level spells being cast at CL 8th with +4 on the DC. Doesn't sound like much until you realize the monsters are only CR 6 to 8.


Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I come to really dislike, if not hate, the Knowledge (local) skill in Pathfinder. I never had much of a problem with it until I started heavily playing PFS. For example, the party traveled thousands of miles to a country they have never visited before or needed to learn about. Then to an extremely remote area, a small village in the hinterlands. Only to make a Know (local) check with a 30+ to remember all about a single person who has never probably never left the village. WTF?

You have to remember that many things in the game are abstractions. Knowledge (local) is a class skill for Bards, Gunslingers, Rogues, Summoners and Wizards. The last two kinda don't count as they have all knowledge skills as class skills. The first three are the types of characters that typically would get to know everyone in town either through direct contact or other subversive means - gossip, spying, etc. So, the party travels thousands of miles to a remote village and even if it doesn't come up in game time, it is assumed that the cleric prays, the fighter sharpens his sword, and the Knowledge (local) character gets the dirt on the locals.


In the recently updated bookmarks, there are two listings for "Goblin" and no entry for "Golem". The second listing of "Goblin" expands to show the various types of Golems.

A small typo, but an important one for anyone looking for a Golem (like I was).


I've been preparing for my RotRL game which starts in a few weeks. I'm not sure how it will work out, but I've gone through and turned much of the NPC info into rumors and will be allowing each player to use Diplomacy to gather info and get one random rumor each day.

Here is an example of a rumor:

Spoiler:
Garridan Viskalai's feud with his brother Belor is over Belor's abandonment of his Shoanti name and tribal ways. Not because Belor is dating a prostitute.

My hope is that this will introduce more of the NPCs and bring some flavor without having the PCs actually interact with specific NPCs.


Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a few more adult players for a weekly Rise of the Runelords (Anniversary Edition) game. The first sitting will be Friday, July 19th, 2013 from 6:00 pm until 10:00 pm. The location will be mid-town, in the vicinity of Broadway and Tucson Blvd. All character concepts are welcome (within rules and reason). This adventure path is very deep allowing great opportunities for character development, role play, NPC interactions, and of course, combat. It is also a serious commitment as it takes players from level 1 up through levels 16-18.

If you are interested or want more information, email me at mjezairian@msn.com.


<sarcasm>
Wow! All you guys are playing it all wrong. It is GM vs. players - bring your best monsters and watch them crying like babies. This game isn't about having fun, story telling, role playing or companionship with good friends. It is all about the vicious beat down!
</sarcasm>

To be serious, there is an important issue being raised. Where is the balance and how do you deal with character death? Reading some posts, I wonder why track hit points if you are going to make death meaningless and let players just make clones (or improved characters). On the other end is a complete disruption of the CR system and game balance having level 1 and 20 in the same party. As a GM, I struggle greatly with this issue and have yet to find a "good" answer. Really, this issue only exists until level 8 when Raise Dead makes the issue moot. But until then there is a serious problem.

The OP's specific situation is a metagaming issue that should be handled with a talk. If the player can't get behind a character, maybe they need to find a like-minded group.


Pathfinder Monk: A class that struggles mechanically to live up to its ideal.

RPG Monk: Jet Li & friends - no armor, no weapons, small stature, but totally dominates in hand-to-hand combat using skill, not magic.

I agree that the Monk's issues are entirely mechanical.


I house rule something very similar in my games: Paladin align can be any Good and they pick a domain of their deity to be their chosen "cause" (no benefits, just the concept of the domain). Basically, they become the champion of that cause and their code of conduct and associates are loosened to allow anything that doesn't directly oppose their cause. So, the Paladin can participate in a wider range of party activities without be sent on a "shopping mission" any time the party decides to bend the laws. Of course the chosen domain must make sense. An example would be a CG Paladin who is the champion of Community. I think it makes for some more interesting holy champions and sidesteps the more literal interpretations of the RAW restrictions.

Of course, if your group is already flexible on how they view the Paladin, no change is necessary.


If the persistent enemy is predictable (is known to show up at a given place and time), have the party hire a squad/platoon/battalion of min-maxed Archers or even Gunslingers. One volley should do the trick no matter what the BBEG's CR is.

A less conventional approach is abuse of the Leadership feat to create an army of 1st level Wizards who each create a scroll of Magic Missile. Then at some later time, they all use their scrolls against the enemy. While I wish this was my original idea, it is not. I saw it in another thread here. However, it is some seriously stinky cheese.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM whose first words at the start of every new campaign is "Leadership is banned", I did my best to read the original post with an open mind. And I think that the OP's methods would prevent many of the potential problems associated with Leadership. But where does it end? Might as well hand out pregen characters if you are going to start making decisions on what choices players should make regarding their characters, or how to play aspects of their characters. Animal companion, eidolon, familiar, cohort, summoned monster: why take control of one and not others?

I'll agree that it can be made to work. Probably with lots of work, arguing, hurt feelings, mistakes, blown game sessions, and who knows what else. For what? So a player can struggle role playing two characters when I'm betting they have trouble with one? Is all the potentially lost game time worth it to everyone involved? Seriously, what do the other 4 or 5 PCs at the table who don't take Leadership gain from all this while they watch the endless arguments over the cohort's details?

Sorry, this is why I ban it and will continue to. Three words, a few disappoints looks and we can all get down to actually gaming. It just isn't worth the cost of trying to make it work.


I ran a game from 8th up through 15th and the party had no full casters, just mostly melee types. At the end it was quite doable, but became problematic.

First issue was the level of skill required by the players and the overhead of managing a character with so many options. In many cases, a lot of viable options were never used by the players because they had too many special abilities to choose from.

The second biggest problem was the speed and pacing of combat which ground to a halt. It took most players several minutes with a calculator to resolve their turns (the Monk was the worst with all those attacks) and there was lots of recalculation due to forgetting a bonus or three. Also, the number of interrupts grew exponentially. We had a tripping fighter who made a mess of combat because of the attacks of opportunities and the complexities of resolving them all all during his "turn". It got to a point where everyone should have been using macro-enabled excel spreadsheets to assist them in resolving their attacks.

As GM, I was no better trying to effectively play several monsters that were loaded with nearly countless options. It often took me several minutes to plan out the monster's turn.

Last was the difficulty of balancing things. One wrong or right move by either side would end the encounter. This was made worse by the first problem. Far too many encounters were speed bumps or TPKs.

I didn't like it much, but it is certainly playable. It just presents a new set of challenges for the GM and players. I expect it isn't for everyone, but it can certainly be done.


I generally hand-wave the encumbrance changes due to coins as the party gains and spends their gold. However, in extremes (the giant pile of copper), I'll force the party to address the issue - no calculating or anything like that, but they can't just walk out with it.

I'm pretty strict on encumbrance at character creation and when dealing with those characters where encumbrance is a real issue (Rogues, I'm looking at you). Some of my players tend to run their characters right at the limit - one more feather and they start taking AC penalties and losing the use of abilities. For them, encumbrance is a constant issue, but it is their own fault. If they left just a little cushion (say 5 lbs), I'd hand-wave most situations.

I don't bother with the space aspect unless the players try something ridiculous. "You want to put the carcass of that Gargantuan creature in your belt pouch?"


Several other people have suggested this - keep play to low levels and very slow on the XP progression. E6 is just a variation on the concept, but the idea is the same - play at lower levels. The advantage to going with this approach is that you can continue to use the CR system and everything will remain as balanced as it is in the full game. All you end up doing is loping off the craziness of the higher levels.

However, if you start messing with the numbers and how they progress, you will not be able to rely on the CR system as a guideline for game balance. That is a ton of work (I've tried it) and gets very tedious. Also, each time you make a mistake, it can have a profound effect on the game experience. There are only so many "Oops, sorry" TPKs a party will endure before they decide to find another form of entertainment.

Do yourself a favor and stick to low level play (E6 or otherwise). Don't rewrite the game. I'm guessing your players probably want to play Pathfinder (a game they know) rather than Ninjariffic's Custom RPG Game System(TM) (a game they know nothing about).


I'm with AaronOfBarbaria on this one. My players would claim that I include plenty of random encounters. In some games, I even go through the motions of rolling dice and "checking" charts to see if they encounter something. But ultimately, every encounter is carefully planned out in advance. Nothing kills a game session like too many pointless random encounters when the GM's dice make it so.


I think the Pathfinder Society and its members would be entirely unlikable if encountered in the real world. They are a bunch of elitist jerks who turn a blind eye toward anything that doesn't fit with their greedy, selfish agenda.

Off Topic: The more troubling aspect is the unbelievability of the Society missions. If it were limited to spelunking in dangerous desolate places that no one wants to explore, it would be somewhat believable - they fill a niche. However, despite having standing armies, powerful spell casters, and vast resources, not a single nation can get through a day without the involvement of 4 - 6 low level Society members who could care less about the mission and just want their fame and loot.

Someone stole that old lady's purse. Oh no! Forget the City Guard and the local High Wizard, only those selfish, greedy bastards at the Society can recover it.


Anything with a CR that is 5+ greater than APL.

A Goblin with 7 levels of Warrior will scare the crap out of any 1st level party right before it TPKs them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A more serious answer is: It depends on the party facing the monster. A CR 8 Nabasu Demon will have a field day against a group of fighters by using Mass Hold Person. That same ability is mostly a joke against a group of paladins, clerics, and monks.

Likewise, a Red Dragon can be nasty against almost any party. Except the one that has Resist Energy (fire) and Protection From Energy (fire) up on every party member...


Personally, I think PFS and home games are like chess and checkers - they both use the same board, but are entirely different games.

In a home game, depending on how you play, you may need no social skills at all. Your group can choose to ignore many of the rules regarding social skills and let role playing take over.

All of my PFS experiences have been 100% roll play. A well roll played interaction gets reduced to "make your Diplomacy check". Saying "I say some stuff" also results in "make your Diplomacy check". A party without a "face" in PFS is like a party without a damage dealer - you've got nobody who can reliably make the necessary dice rolls to resolve the situation. But even in PFS, more than one character with "face" skills is generally a waste. The catch is that you don't get to pick who sits down at the table.


In my custom games, having a solo encounter at the end of a string of encounters works really well. I don't do it every time or even most times. However, it works because the string of lead-up encounters are designed to eat up the party's resources, making the solo monster a viable threat. I also don't allow my players to rest before they really need it by having "wandering" monsters interrupt their rest or by repopulating the "dungeon" when they return perhaps even with reinforcements. My players know it is not worth resting until the party is completely spent or all the bad guys have been defeated. Also, I'm tailoring the encounters specifically to the party.

Published adventures are an entirely different story and I agree that largely solo encounters simply don't work. Sure, a savvy GM can make it work, but "low-tier" GMs seem to go hand-in-hand with published adventures, especially PFS adventures. Too many times the PFS GM is the guy who drew the short straw or lost at rock-paper-scissors and is stuck being the GM (not necessarily the most qualified person).

No matter who the GM is, I think the problem with published solo encounters is the author/encounter creator has no idea what the party makeup will be. And it is nearly impossible to pick a single monster that will present a proper challenge to any combination of 4-6 characters played by people who range from die-hard role-players to min-maxing munchkins.


The GM's "house rule" does more than just nerf spell casters and ranged combatants, it basically eliminates the benefits of a 5-foot step, especially if the monster/NPC in question takes Following Step and Step Up and Strike. That is going to kill martial characters above 6th level, when they gain iterative attacks and are doing the "5-foot step shuffle" for positioning while making full attacks.

My answer to this for a wizard/sorcerer would be nothing different than "normal" - good positioning to avoid melee and Vanish cast defensively when the excrement hits the rotary oscillator. DC 17 isn't that bad, especially at level 3+. A bonus is that most things will have a difficult time following as you walk away (+20 on Stealth checks), so you buy at least another round before the offending monsters is in your face again. If the GM also metagames, then this (and just about everything else) won't work. However, it is a cheap solution (1 x 1st level spell) that is useful in many different situations.

If it were me, I'd be looking for a different GM to game with. I generally support house rules and rule adjustments to make a better play experience for everyone - those that favor the players or pinpoint specific problem areas. This kind of sweeping change, unless extensively play tested, is just asking for trouble.


I don't think DPR as I've seen it used on these boards is very meaningful anywhere but on these boards. If you are going to have a contest of who can build a X Level character with the highest damage output, DPR is a critical measurement.

In an actual game, the DPR number isn't that important. At least until the DPR for the group is terribly low - then it is a critical factor. At the end of the day, a group's DPR is what kills the monsters and ends the encounters. You can mess the monsters up with spells and effects, but eventually they end and you still have to actually kill the monsters. If the party can deliver more DPR than the monsters (relative to each others hit points), the party survives. If not, the GM gets a "win" and everyone goes home sad. So, it is a good consideration when building a party or when building a damage dealing character. Otherwise, not so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Wyrd_Wik wrote:
As others have posted rpgs are about not only the individual characers but the group. Some people have the time, inclination to pour through the rules and squeeze every last drop out of it others don't as simply they are more casual in their approach. I'd say as long as each of these players can work together in a group it should be fun. The problem starts when either the 'powergamer' feels the rest of the group isn't up to their 'standard' or the others feel the powergamer gets all the glory. Overall good DMing is a lot of being able to read the group and tailor the game so everyone enjoys the time they have. That and also being upfront about what type of game they are running (e.g. horror themed, over the top wuxia etc.).

And this is why I hate PFS. Or really most organized play.

The GM has next to no narrative control. They can't tailor a game to the tastes of the group they can't even tailor it to their tastes. It's tailored, prepackaged, and worse the group can change from one week, or month, or whatever to another.

It's no wonder people over optimize at times and get accused of munchkining when their character overshadows another. They're trying to play to see how the story turns out (which they have little to no control over)while the other guy is trying to immerse into it.

Off Topic: Organized play can be even worse than that. If the scenario happens to include elements that make the game agonizingly boring for the particular group, the GM really can't make any adjustments. You are stuck with the scenario and if the individual PCs at the table form a group that doesn't fit with the scenario, it will be 4 hours of fun, fun, fun for everybody.

Back On Topic: I personally hate the term "Power Game". It is a negative label that is attached to anyone who builds a character that is good at what they do. Frankly, if you don't "Power Game" (by that definition), I think you are playing the game "wrong" by building ineffective characters which is as bad for the group and play experience as the munchkins who try to marginalize everyone else.


Most of the combats I've run and played in had about 3 meaningful rounds. They lasted about 6 rounds total, but one or two at the beginning and the end didn't have much going on.

The exceptions usually included some kind of special situation, like a flying dragon that strafes the party round after round until they figure out what to do with it. Or situations where several of the party members are ineffective (wizard vs golem, melee vs flying, etc.) Or where the monsters had some kind of healing.


Just my own take on this: I usually put monsters in one of three categories. Mindless (usually undead), Highly Motivated, and everything else.

The Mindless don't know to stop (mindless, duh). The Highly Motivated will act based on other motivations "Those pesky PCs foiled my last plan..." or "must...eat...now!!!". The rest will generally use survival instincts. Even the dumbest of animals knows to stop fooling with the dead/unconscious thing while there are still threats. There is also the question of can the monster even tell the difference between dead and unconscious in 6 seconds or less while in a battle for its life? In most cases, I think not.

There is also the meta aspect to the question. Regardless of how one may choose to play the monsters, there is the larger question of killing in general. If the party has fairly easy access to Raise Dead, etc. then kill away as death is merely an inconvenience. But there are some serious concerns if the party is say 5th level (too high to have a 1st level replacement PC, too low for Raise Dead). If you allow replacements of equal level (more or less), there isn't much penalty to death - the PCs just roll up a clone or something new. If you don't, you basically kill the game since now there is someone running around who is 4+ levels away from the rest of the party. I struggle with this question more than the one on how to play the monsters.


This topic is exactly why certain spells and abilities are really unsuitable to be used against PCs, especially PCs in organized play games. The "Pit" spells just get nastier and nastier as they go up in level as does their depth, duration and Climb DCs. Much like Stinking Cloud, the spell is an "encounter killer". If applied to players often enough, it can cause "Lonely GM Syndrome" where nobody wants to play in your games because watching paint dry would be more fun.

My snarky answer to the OP is "Get up, hit the bathroom, go get a snack and see if you can catch a quick Magic The Gathering game or something. By the time you get back, you'll be out of the pit."

More seriously, anything that involves climbing is going to end up pretty much taking you out of the fight. No matter how well you can boost your climb check, you are still climbing at 1/4 speed (1/2 speed at best). In which case, might as well stay wait for the duration to expire unless the pit is doing damage.


Thanks. That sounds like what they were saying I should do. I didn't think to look on the product page.


It is about the scenarios themselves and to who ever decides their balance, what elements are included, how they are balanced, etc.

I've already provided feedback to the appropriate Venture-Officers/GMS. They encouraged me to give my feedback directly to paizo.


Is there a way to provide direct feedback (aka not a post on the message boards) regarding Pathfinder Society? I looked around the site, but couldn't find anything. Thanks in advance.


If you can ignore the prerequisites (like Ranger and Zen Archer can), Improved Precise Shot is probably one of the best. Ignoring cover and concealment except for total on each is sweet. Basically, if you can see it, you don't suffer a penalty or miss chance. However, most of the awesomeness is in getting the feat 5 levels before everyone else.


If you have a party that will work with you and the PCs are 6th to 10th level, you can destroy Gunslingers with a Ranger or Zen Archer (or with any class that can get Improved Precise Shot and ignore the +11 BAB prerequisite). I'm assuming you'll of course max your Touch AC with the usual stuff and new goodies like the Amulet of Bullet Protection and the Bullet Shield spell. I'm also assuming (and this is a big one) that the cover rules are being applied correctly - something most people get wrong.

The tactic is simple: stand behind your party and start to pin cushion the gunslingers. Both sides have soft cover because of your party (and your party should position themselves to create this). The trick is that you ignore all cover except Total Cover and all concealment except Total Concealment. So, you're making full-attacks with no penalty while they have to position (no full-attack) and/or give you +4 AC due to soft cover. The key will be good execution (aka positioning) by your party to create the disparity.


My first thoughts when I read this was either the PCs are extremely high level (Boots of Flying) or are expending lots of resources (spells and potions).

The very high level solution is rather easy - use level appropriate monsters and level appropriate tactics - what high CR monsters doesn't have a hiding place or safe haven nearby? High CR monsters tend to have very nasty abilities that work if you are flying, falling, on the ground, underground, dead, undead...you get the picture. Also, against ranged attacks, DR is your friend (especially DR/-). DR 20/- is my personal favorite.

The easy low level solution is more encounters per day and make the first 3 or 4 weaker and a turkey-shoot for a flying group. Let them waste their resources wiping out the poor Orcs from above. Then in encounter #4 when they've used up their resources, make up for it with a high CR encounter. Heh, even better if it includes flying creatures like a dragon.

No matter what, as already suggested, play the whole thing out with every boring detail and dice roll. It may make for some really horrible game sessions, but the players are choosing to make it that way. Also, start enforcing all of the flying rules including altitude, rates of ascent and descent, turning. Make the entire experience an exercise in minutia and record keeping. Players really love that (NOT!). You may find their love of flying will fade if it becomes a chore.


I could be wrong on this, but I think for an "on command" item that produces Darkness, the cost of the item is 24k (spell level (2) x caster level (3) x 2,000 gp x 2 for 1/min per level duration spell). If the item works only once per day, the cost drops to 4,800 gp (24k/5)and I expect the duration would be 3 minutes. Each additional daily use will increase the price by 4,800 gp. Keep in mind that the formulas are a general guideline and other factors can influence price.

Darkness can be very powerful (total concealment) against the right foes. Having to pay 24k to have that on demand doesn't seem all that crazy to me. Granted, it is irrelevant to most of the monster types out there...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the current incarnation of Antagonize isn't necessarily broken, but it will still be banned at my games. Here's why:

It has nothing to do with the wording of the current feat or any future wordings. My printed copy of Ultimate Magic and my players' printed copies of Ultimate Magic all present Antagonize with the "old" broken wording. Also, most (if not all) of the pdf copies of Ultimate Magic in my group also have the broken wording. So, I keep the feat banned to prevent the in-game, rules-lawyering, yelling, screaming, and crying argument that will come from allowing the feat and then trying to enforce the current wording when nearly every "official" source supports the broken wording.

In a nut-shell, I don't want to spend hours of game time arguing over it when that time could be spent actually playing the game. It would not surprise me if other GMs are doing the same thing.


Kolokotroni wrote:

In general if you want a balanced encounter, regardless of whether you want it to be hard, easy, or somewhere inbetween, you should NEVER have a single opponent. That goes one of two ways, either it is overwhelmed by the action economy (4+ vs 1) or it is so powerful that it is far too much of a threat to any single party member.

If you want a higher CR threat add MORE monsters, not one bigger badder one.

This.

While many parties can regularly handle encounters where CR = APL +2 or +3 (adjusted for party size), there is a very narrow CR window for each individual monster in the encounter. If the individual monster's CR is 2 below APL, it will be a joke (literally can't hit the PCs, excpet on nat 20). If the CR is APL is 3 above, prepare for a TPK (to hit chance is 75%+ and damage is 50% of a PC's max hit points or more).

If you stick to building your encounters from a pool of monsters with CRs from APL-1 to APL+2, you should fine most of the time.


This is from the Game Mastery Guide - the Minor/Medium/Major Items are the number of items that are above the Base Value. Also, the Core Rulebook says to re-roll any items that are below the Base Value (granted, at the very end of the paragraph). So, a wand worth 750 could not be one of the rolled items in a settlement with a Base Value of 8k - it would be "readily available" (75% chance).

How I handled this for a campaign that involved lots of unpredictable travel and was to convert the number of items into a percentage chance. If a player wanted to buy something over the Base Value, I rolled to see if it was available that week. It saved me from having to generate lots and lots of item lists, since the list for each settlement is recreated each week. And often several in-game weeks would pass in the span of a single session.

I used this progression and it seemed to work well:

4d4 items = 60%
3d4 items = 45%
2d4 items = 30%
1d6 items = 20%
1d4 items = 15%

However, all of this assumed a franchised MagicMart (TM) outlet in every thorp, village, and hamlet. I really don't like the MagicMart idea or the imagery of a giant WallMart-ish big-box outlet store with 3 huts of villagers around it.


Wow. I think you can read RAW either way. Clearly a FAQ is necessary.

However, in any game I GM, I'll allow a player to move after making one attack with ManyShot. But then their character will be immediately struck by lava-filled, sonic lightning bolts that bypass all DR and automatically critical with a x4 multiplier until they are dead.

Hopefully, some humor will lighten the intense arguing.

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.