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

MisterSlanky's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,718 posts (3,096 including aliases). 50 reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 14 Pathfinder Society characters. 4 aliases.


1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is pretty unfortunate. I do enjoy the WBG series more than a lot of the long term players, but the every other year thing was really what I needed. Sure, the other FRPGD scenarios have been pretty horrible and pulling in new players, but at least it was something fresh every other year.

I'll enjoy it, but I am disappointed. It's too bad that there can't be an attempt to write something new in concept that pulls in the new players.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tactical Maps & Handouts

Eeew Jack, just eew. It's the ghost of 10 year old girl.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Female LN Dwarf Female Dwarf Hunter 1 | HP: 6/18 | AC: 17 (11 Tch, 16 Fl) | CMB: +3, CMD: 14 | F: +5*, R: +3*, W: +3* (*+3 vs. poison, spells, and spell-like abilities) | Init: +1 | Perc: +6, SM: +6 | Speed 20ft | Shirt Reroll: 0/1 Animal Focus: 0/1 | Spells: 1st 0/2 | Active conditions: None.

Sigríðr watches Blue in slow-motion start to fall from the floor above, only to hover a moment before he steps back onto the ledge. She shouts, "The crocodile is dead! I got him."

Sovereign Court ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cast ant haul. It will last you until monday.

Don't tell me what to do. Peasant.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's one for the pedantic rules lawyers among us. And I have done this.

Check and see how many low level halfling/gnome cavaliers have mounts that aren't encumbered. If the answer is, "they're not", somebody is lying, because at that level the dogs, wolves, etc. strength isn't enough to handle the rider, and the rider's equipment.

In fact, if there's anywhere encumbrance is usually ignored in PFS, this is the place. And this is not a statement of it should be ignored, more of a statement of, "bet you don't always think of this one."

Shadow Lodge ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Auke Teeninga wrote:
If you didn't know Tonya is the Organised Play Coordinator

Oraganized Auke. Take your silly European understanding elsewhere. This thread is 'Murican. ;-)

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tonya Woldridge wrote:
There are other ways, besides reskinning to accomplish the original goal—not ditching a valued animal companion for an upgrade. Let's focus on the OP and ways to make their idea work that don't violate the reskinning rules.

Tonya, I agree. But the OP has presented this as a questions, the responses indicate that he's locked into he wants to make, his interpretation of the rules, and a position of "I should be able to reskin". This in turn has turned this into a rehash of the reskinning rules. If there were a feat, trait, or otherwise that would permit him to do this I would happily mention it just to get the stupid argument to die yet again, but without appreciating that there are reskinning rules, and they're there for a reason, it's hard to get any give on the other side.

I want to have a pig, but I'm going to use the stats for a dog - but it's still a pig.

I want to have a griffon, but I'm going to use the stats for a horse - but it's still a griffon.

So now it's just an ongoing continuation of the reskinnning argument in the exact same lines as the original pig discussion.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lune wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The Celestial template doesn't change the creature type.
That is not true and I have linked it several times.

Go read the template. It's okay I'll wait.

Now please, come back, and with a copy/paste, please state EXACTLY where it changes the creature type. I'm guessing you can't.

Quote:


It says right there in the feat that it becomes a magical beast. Later in your post you contradict yourself saying that the creature type does change so maybe I am confused by your wording?

Yup, it does. Why does it? Because the celestial template does not. So that's what do we have to go on. In fact, the feat's wording needs to clarify that you gain the celestial template and change to a creature type of magical beast.

Quote:

You say that a Celestial horse must still be identifiable as a horse even though it isn't even an animal anymore because that is how the rules work. What rules?

Returning to the same question: can you tell me what a Celestial horse looks like? If not why are you opposed to me telling you what it looks like?

Auke responded to your exact question. Your celestial horse is a horse. Nothing but a horse. It's a horse that happens to live in the higher planes. It doesn't have an outsider template, it doesn't have magical flying powers, it doesn't have horns or feathers or scales, and it doesn't have anything else other than being a perfect specimen of a horse. Now because you're spending a feat, it also happens to be a magical beast, which has a different set of mechanical benefits. But it's still just a horse.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lune wrote:
I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

It absolutely wasn't fun the first time. In fact, the first time turned into a huge mess that caused the FAQ to be posted.

It then wasn't fun the next ten times it came up; what would make this time fun?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
olePigeon wrote:
Wait. Maybe. Can I use Quick Draw with an Underground Chemist? Seems to be a contradiction in wording.

I agree. This is the best way to make a PFS character. Find a loophole. Yup, nothing can go wrong with that plan.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
olePigeon wrote:
I believe the Vivisectionist is banned in PFS for being too strong.

Vivisectionists are banned for being evil. I should know. I got them banned.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
olePigeon wrote:
My concern is late game effectiveness, past 3rd level.

This is "late game"? Wow...

Feral mutagen and claw/claw/bite is effective start-to-stop career-wise, so this argument doesn't hold water against the vast number of alchemists I've encountered (and mine for that matter).

Quote:
1d6+4 at 7th level is negligible.

Color most of my characters pointless then. Guess I'll write off my paladin that does 1d6+6 on an attack at level 10. Yup, can't fight anything at that level with my regular non-touch attack bonus. Nope, those hounds of Tindalos didn't die last night.

Your expectations of what is "effective" don't seem to represent the reality of what can be effective. Maybe an adjustment of expectations is in order?

Quote:
If I could Quick Draw alchemical items, it'd pretty much solve everything. Bombs would be great burst damage with limited AOE, but being able to keep up with the Wizard and Fighter by being able to throw Alchemist's Fire and Acid Flask as a full attack would be great. With a Hybridization Funnel, even better.

But you're not a wizard. And you're not a fighter. And your goals and effectiveness are very different than either class. If you want to be either, I'd suggest making one of those two classes.

Quote:
And it's not an advantage. Those items take up a lot of resources, even at 1/3 cost. You're going to dropping ducats like nothing just to keep supplied on ammunition.

Tell that to my gunslinger buddy that uses only adamantine rounds.

Maybe instead of complaining about the one feature you think would make you more effective you should search out other routes of being effective?

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

An interesting conundrum, and one I think is more confined by your preconceived ideas of how to play an alchemist than actual mechanics.

Quote:
I wanted to buck that trend. I wanted to make a full Alchemist. It's just... well, I'm tired of the glares I get from other gamers when I can't participate in combat effectively.

This is unfortunate. How much of it is you, and how much of it is them? Yesterday I had a player complain that a vital strike sword & board player "wasn't an effective fighter" because it didn't fit his idea of how much damage a fighter should be doing. Said fighter was actually fine. It was that player's problem, not an actual problem with the character.

Quote:
His spells are personal use and very limited during combat.

Not entirely true. You could take the discovery that eliminates this problem if you feel it's critical to be able to use extracts on others.

Quote:
He can't do melee

Feral mutagen claw/claw/bite alchemists have a reputation of being particularly tough, especially at the low levels. This is an option since the mutagen is easy to replace mid-adventuring-day.

Quote:
A crossbow doing a measly 1d6 per round is just pathetic past 1st level... and this will drag on until 8th level.

You have throw anything (my alchemist doesn't, but I'm kinda dumb that way and dropped it). Meaning you're likely doing 1d6+4 per round on touch with splash damage. Pulling the item (move) and using it (standard) is fundamentally no slower than using the crossbow you've indicated you have. Add to this that you probably have point blank, splash weapon mastery, etc. and you're doing pretty well with that touch AC attack.

Now I do agree after making a few straight up alchemists that they're not always the easiest to build, and it's easy to kind of muck around with trying to do too much, but I really don't think this is the issue you've said it to be. You sure this is a problem with the way that the powers that be(tm) rule things?

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So for the DC on the ritual to go into dreamland. I did some reading in the Occult book and it seems that the DCs listed there for their examples are very much in-line for the DCs posted on the research checks for the two tiers. So that's where I'd stick until we hear otherwise (so DC 25 and 30 I believe).

Sovereign Court ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was merely speaking to the more intelligent of the two of you.

Sovereign Court ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My ability to record images of you did fine Thundernuts.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The folks at Bath and Body Works, clearly.

Sovereign Court ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Quick wrote:

Gods....

That which is seen...

I've seen horrors in my day, but there was one thing that cannot be unseen.

I blame all of you. Jack especially.

Scarab Sages ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who left this here?

And what's that over there?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*sigh*

Thank you @Misroi for giving something firm to start with. Don't know if I agree that it says what you're saying it says, but it is absolutely a start.

This is the reason I no longer visit rules forums. I don't need you to read-into the intent of my question, I'm looking for an actual place to start and a place to go to better understand both the ruling, and potential alternatives/pitfalls to the ruling. It's like every time a question is posted, all the intent is read, but none of the actual question is answered.

We all look at rules with the blinders on. "It works this way because it works this way." Whether you like it or not, the language in this game is atrocious. It's is very easy to interpret a different way. I'm a long term player and I interpret differently than all of you. I run it the same way because everybody does, but I do interpret it differently. Sometimes, I'm just looking to see if we've interpreted it correctly, because if there's a group that thinks otherwise, there may be a reason we all think otherwise, especially when you compound it with the awful language used in the definitions of the game.

That's fine though - I'll look into it on my free time.

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Its not about bureaucracy, its about (1) alleviating the huge influx of communication directed at the OPC and (2) creating a structure where the most experienced Venture-Officers can better mentor newer volunteers. With over 500 Venture-Officers, direct contact with the CC/OPC is becoming quite a challenge to maintain and the RVCs will help by vetting a lot of the communication traffic that has until now been falling on the OPC to address. We will have the opportunity to answer questions and help resolve issues that arise leaving Tonya more available to tackle community-wide initiatives. The regions put us in direct, regular contact with the Venture-leaders of the various areas creating a more defined support structure that can help with all manner of logistical and organizational needs.

Sounds like a job to me. In fact it sounds an awful lot like a job. This is especially true considering the already considerable "requirements" to be a Venture Officer. Additionally, the level of coordination you're just describing (each of your managing what I would guess is roughly a tenth of the VC community), is in no certain terms work, and a lot of it.

And it sounds like a not-so flat organization in your workplace either with an extra management layer, which means bureaucracy, whether you like it or not.

Good luck to you, I mean it, but there's a not-so-fine line between volunteerism and "working for free". The later I'm not so sure is terribly legal either.

Shadow Lodge ****

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

With words such as " facilitate communication", "supervise", and "support" in context of "duties" are these folks now considered employees of Paizo?

Not keen on congratulating people on getting more work and creating further levels of bureaucracy in a "volunteer" corps.

I'll happily congratulate the 5-star GMs though!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male NG Human (“Varisian”) Fighter (Lore Warden/Martial Master) 1 / Slayer 1 | HP: 23/23 | AC: 16 (11 Tch, 15 Fl) | CMB: +5, CMD: 16 (17 vs. grapple & trip) | F: +6 (+5 circumstance bonus vs. cold weather), R: +3, W: +1 | Init: +1 | Perc: +5, SM: +5 | Speed 20/30ft | Shirt Reroll: 1/1 | Spells: n/a | Active conditions: Affable

Davorin looks over at Sgt. Blue, "You fool, it's icy, you'll never get away from it!" Davorin cringes a bit at what he imagines is an inevitable paralyzed magus.

Sgt. Blue wrote:
After that the Galtian man tumbles one 5' square away with the undead.

That's half the problem - no 5' steps due to ice

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Archives of nethys. Look for funny white X. Not perfect, but as I'm not doing brain surgery, close enough for state work.

This is what I wind up doing. Or I use Hero Labs. But, considering the number of errors I've found over time, I usually want to confirm on more unusual character builds, which isn't always easy.

Shadow Lodge ****

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Harrowed-Path wrote:

if you aren't a developer.

I am done with replying to you.

Want to know the best way to get a developer to ignore you? Pose a question, get reasonable responses that answer your question, yet continue to call out a developer like a petulant child.

You have a valid and comprehensive list of reasons why things are generally banned on the Additional Resources list provided by Kalindlara in a very nice and friendly fashion. You have evidence that most things aren't banned from BigNorseWolf in again a very friendly and postive manner. Although nicely asked, you will only provide one specific banned content from the Addtional Resources (the Catfolk). You've been given the specicic reason why by Nefreet, who to his credit, did a spectacular job being kind about it at the point where frankly I'm surprised anybody did.

If all you're here to do is complain, and pound your feet on the ground until a developer shows up, good luck. Chances are that developer will be locking the thread, not replying to it.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
p-sto wrote:
We have an online sign up system. But it seems unavoidable to have a surge of sign up the day of a game or last minute drop outs or walk ins. It's very much a case of GMs being flexible in what they run or sending people home a lot of the time. We've tried to encourage players to communicate more but not much has changed.

That is solvable. It just takes persistence on the effort of the organizers, and training for those gaming.

One time sent home and you'll start signing up.

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Another one, probably more controversial: NEVER PLAY OR RUN A SCENARIO COLD.

As in, never GM a game you haven't prepped; never play in a game the GM is running cold. You only have one chance to experience a story for the first time. GMs owe it to the players and the authors to not miss stuff by being unprepared; players shouldn't encourage GMs to run this way by playing in their games.

I second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth this comment.

We have a game store that was (is) notorious for the GMs running the scenarios cold. Now that I don't have to be politically correct, I have no qualms stating that I will not under any circumstances enter and play at this store. Yes the coordinator that caused most of the problems has moved on, but the habit that started there does continue there, and I have better places to play my games.

I've seen new players walk away from PFS because they have an "experienced" GM run the game cold. It's worse if you're not that comfortable with the game.

So, I don't care if you're flippin' Eric Brittain (the best GM I've seen and a man I swear can do no wrong), please don't do this to your players.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Peachbottom wrote:
I missed that this was under the PFS thread. PFS has some silly rules.

This isn't exactly a PFS specific rule, this is pretty much a core rule. You can increase your animal's intelligence, but it stays an animal. This was covered by a general blog post a few years back.

Shadow Lodge ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mike Eckrich wrote:
Also makes a lot of sense if the group is playing the higher tier. You might not want to slow the group down with a 6th level, and a 7th level pre-gen might be a better fit.

In my day, when I was a Venture Officer, words of this nature would have never left my lips.

I show up to game days to play my character. Suggesting that somebody not play their character (and I quote here), "to slow the group down with a 6th level" blows my mind. About five years ago, at Gen Con, we forever lost a player, a good friend of mine in fact, because nearly these exact words left the mouth of the players at his very first Pathfinder table at a convention. He showed up with his Level 2 druid, sat down with a table of 4 & 5's, and was promptly told that he would hurt their group too much and he should play Kyra. He got up, left, and never came back to the game.

Now...the original poster asked if he could play the low level pregen because he felt overpowered, which is fine, if a player has made a decision on his or her own, they do whatever you want, but I'd strongly, strongly consider words more carefully in the manner that you may "slow down" a group of higher level players.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My experiences with the puzzle were about on-par for what's being reported.

As soon as they got the note, they immediately started going the math route. The moment they did so, everything fell apart, and I would say that's one of the critical flaws to the puzzle, you start heading down the wrong rabbit hole, and you'll never come out.

I wound up leaving for a quick drink and by the time I came back I could tell they were forever lost on trying to figure out the puzzle. Not even the "easy" clue put them back on track. At that point, we were running short, and I could tell frustration was setting in, so I just handwaved the whole thing for them.

I hate, hate, loathe, and despise puzzles like this in scenarios. There needs to be a method of mechanical solution or crap like this happens. I've seen it at tables with kids, I've seen it at tables with really smart people, and I've seen it at tables that are so hungover they can barely figure out how to add their attack roll to a d20. The one thing though that was unforgivable is that the puzzle absolutely halted the scenario mid-action and the pace never picked back up again. It was the wrong puzzle, and the wrong spot.

I have to agree with Matthew, I won't run this again. It wasn't Darkest Vengeance hateworthy due to some other interesting mechanics, but it certainly is down near the bottom.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

At it's heart, even though we all love playing Pathfinder, SkålCon is about giving back to the community. Yes we are all about getting together and playing the game we love, but we also want to show how big of a heart we all have. Therefore, I am offering up the following challenge goal for SkålCon in an effort to pull new players into the game and to earn donations where there otherwise aren't any. My hope is that others of you consider doing the same - this is a good cause after all.

I will purchase a ticket at the door for the first two unregistered players that meet the following criteria:


  • Do not have a current PFS number
  • Did not register on WarHorn (or cheated by removing their registration to take advantage of this)
  • Are confirmed by any PFS leadership as not an active, current, or former player
  • Were not planning to attend SkålCon in the first place
  • Are not trying to game the system and get in for free by my offer (as determined by the above PFS leadership)

I'm hoping one of you can recruit a player from the store floor to come and play a game with us - even if it's just for one session. If they play for more and love it, hopefully will gain a new player, and more importantly, hopefully they will know what kind of cause we will be getting together for.

See you all tomorrow!

Sovereign Court ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
No. Whats being asked is that you actually SEE every possible consequence of future action (and non action) and how it affects people. HUGE difference.

I can see every possible outcome. They're called divination spells. Hells, even our cleric can do that kind of magic. What are you, some dumb barbarian that doesn't believe in superstitious voodoo? I tell you...the Pathfinders the Decemvirate makes me interact with get dumber every day.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
And we both know how well that is going to work. I can't count how many times GMs can't even read the tactic blocks on badguys and just go gung-ho with severely deadly tactics. We see lots and lots of complaints about some adventure or other being too difficult, and when we hear what happened, its largely because of this.

I know!

I had this GM once start off combat with a chain lightning and a fire snake even though the tactics clearly said that the bad guy wanted to toy with the enemies first. Fortunately he only killed two PCs.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just Humans. Let's make Golarion human-centric again. ;-)

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel like such a Pathfinder right now. We were given limited information and told to connect dots on using an item in no way that made sense.

Is this what those terrible "Venture Captains" do to their fodder? If so, it's strange they haven't rebelled so far.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I still think the rule is silly for all the reasons that if you care to know you can dig them up in my post history.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

IMHO Retraining is nothing more than (another) tool used primarily (not always, but primarily) by those more interested in tweeking out every last ounce of power out of their character rather than just playing. Having watched them grow more powerful with each release (and subsequently watched my fun playing at those tables go down), seeing more tools available for those kinds of players doesn't make me happy. In fact, in your specific example of traits, I find them to be primary examples of what defines a character. So while retraining of feats, classes, and even hit points irritates me to no end, I find it abhorrent to allow trait retraining because it damages my verisimilitude.

So your examples of why it wouldn't hurt gameplay mean nothing to me, because they do not address a fundamental issue I have with the rules in general.

Retraining is a phenomenon from the MMO world, and frankly it's one I think PnP gaming can do without. It'll never be allowed at my home table, and while the decision has been made for PFS, I'll be happy to enforce every last rule involving retraining to the letter to try to minimize it from occurring. We already have enough custom rules in PFS, we do not need a custom rule for this.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
And frankly, it is the responsibility of the leadership (myself included) of the campaign to make sure that players are being educated on the rules. Based on what MisterSlanky said, it appears that the veteran players and GM's and the V-O's (including MisterSlanky when he was V-C of the Twin Cities) were lax in making sure this was taught correctly.

I would like to point out they were all new players from after my era. ;-)

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Young wrote:
GM signoffs on purchases have ALWAYS been required. Always. This just puts it all on a nice form for ease of player and GM reference.

Scott, could you please show me where in the current (or previous) versions of the guide it said that initials (or signature) from the GM were required? I'm not trying to be aggressive here, it's just I don't ever recall seeing that rule written down and in my tenure as VC I ran the region that way - signatures on equipment purchases were not required because the guide does not make mention of it. That requirement has held locally since my resignation as well.

Quote:

But your Chronicles and now the Tracking Sheet are the official character sheet, not Hero Lab. This will be a much better system going forward, because it will remove the accidental "did I use that?" consumable issue, and make it reasonable for a GM to know what a character actually has. As it stands, it takes a GM so long to audit a single character sheet, that it can't be realistically done at the table. This means mistakes, and more malicious behaviour, go unchallenged, skewing game balance and rewarding bad or sloppy record-keeping. That is worse for the campaign than a little bit of extra paperwork that was supposed to be done anyway.

I certainly don't disagree with the idea that the Chronicle and (now) Tracking Sheet are your official record (not Hero Lab), but I don't agree that it will facilitate GM review of equipment. Looking through 20 chronicles, and looking through 4-5 equipment sheets are both time consuming. I probably bought two pages worth of equipment for my alchemist before Thornkeep with the 5 sessions of GM credit I had lying around.

I also think that this firmly puts the campaign on "defensive mode" regarding cheating. With some of my more recent experiences, perhaps this is a warranted change, but in general I don't agree that the extra paperwork is worth it. It is a game after all. If I want to do paperwork, I'll go to work.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
Will all characters (both new and old) be required to use the inventory tracker? If so, should I just right in everything on the tracker and then get my next GM to initial the whole batch?
Yes. Check the FAQ please.

With respect, I think this is going too far.

I don't particularly like the new inventory tracking and sign-off rules (it's already hard enough running a scenario under the time limits sometimes), but to ask me to go back and transcribe 30 some records of purchases, item uses, and sales IMHO is asking a little much.

I did a full character audit of my wizard before Eyes of the Ten making sure I spent all the gold I was supposed to spent (since keeping track of scrolls plus scribing costs often gets a little cumbersome) and the entire process took me roughly 4-6 hours (one evening dedicated solely to this activity), I do not want to, nor do I intend to spend even half that time to transcribe/audit my other 8 characters (the lowest level of which is 4).

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Hmm... I'm going to assume that I still need to hand out faction missions for Eyes of the Ten.

BEAKY III DEMANDS IT!

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't upset about the removal of the faction's importance in Season 5. I'm also kind of upset that this is being done retroactively to seasons 0-4 (because I enjoy the faction missions all things considered).

That said, if they've lost their importance, I wish factions had just been done away with altogether.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Woo! New chronicle for season 5!

OMG OMG OMG...is that current prestige and then fame?! Did we get it ordered right this time!?

Shadow Lodge ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will continue to run faction missions whenever possible regardless.

Why? Five words.

I do this for Taldor!

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Eric, the complaint being made is that you have shown no incentive to look things up yourself, it is not that you're incapable of memorizing an entire set of rulebooks (I don't think anybody except Kyle Baird and maybe Jiggy can claim to have done that). You're happy to ask somebody else to spend their time looking up a rule, but you're not willing to spend any effort yourself in doing so. Believe it or not, that may be considered rude.

What most of us want to do is live by the mantra of "teach a person to fish". I (and others) don't want to answer every previously answered question ad nauseum. We'd rather that you take a minute or two to do a search and find out the answer to yourself. Believe it or not, it may actually save you time.

Out of curiosity I went and tried to answer your question and timed myself to see how long it took (because I didn't know the answer either).

Eric Saxon wrote:
Tell me where in those rules you can find out that an Aasimar with the Scion of Humanity can use Human only Feats and Traits, in all books other than the Advanced Race Guide?

I couldn't remember which book Scion of Humanity was in (I assume if I were curious, I'd probably know, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're using Hero Labs or something). Total time to navigate to d20pfsrd, do a search on 'Scion of humanity', find 'scion of humanity' on the page, and navigate to figure out which book it's from - 22.5 seconds.

I then opened up a new browser window, navigated to the additional resources, searched for 'Advanced Race Guide' and looked through the list (realizing at this point it's sorted by race) and saw the statement that all traits and feats are legal for Aasamir. Time spent doing that? 33.04 seconds.

Again, you likely know this information since you had the book open looking up a resource in the first place, but since I already have the browser window for d20pfsrd open, and I personally don't recall where "World Traveler" is from I did a search looked up the trait, and saw it was from the APG. Time spent, 18.63 seconds.

I went back to paizo.com (already open), looked up "Advanced Race Guide" and "Scion of Humanity" with the find function on the additional resource page. Discovered that the following traits are NOT legal section. Trait is not on the list, I know I'm good to go. Time spent - 13.52 seconds.

Total time spent with the extra time required for me to look up sources = 87.69 seconds, or less than one and a half minutes.

Total time spent specifically reviewing the additional resources = 46.56 seconds, or less than one minute.

I've spent a lot longer than even the more rigorous just writing up this e-mail to respond about whether it's legal or not. I also spent my 1.5 minutes (rather than having you spend yours). That's what I believe is driving people off. You ask basic questions that you don't need to know the rules inside and out to answer, you just need a little search savvy.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's how you read that stat block.

Single Attack
You get one move, and one standard action each round. A standard action may be used to swing your sword once, fire your crossbow once, or do a slew of other actions listed as "Standard actions" in the core rulebook (e.g. grapple somebody, cast spells, drink a potion, use a special ability, etc.).

Full Attack
A full attack takes up BOTH your move action and standard action. This comes into play in two very important situations, one is iterative attacks (which you won't have to worry about for some time), the second is dual wielding (which your character appears to do with two daggers).

So...what does that mean in terms of the +'s?

Breaking up the weapon stat
Look at a basic weapon stat - Longsword +6 (1d8+4 19-20)


  • Longsword - Name of the weapon
  • +6 - What you get to add to your d20 roll to-hit
  • 1d8+4 - Your weapon damage, how much damage you to get to roll if you hit.
  • 19-20 - Your critical threat range. If you roll this number on your to-hit roll and you hit, you may roll again to see if you do extra damage. If no multiplier is listed, it's always x2 damage, otherwise the block may say "x3", "x4" etc. If no range is listed, assume you only may crit on a natural 20.

So here's your specific character example...
Where it says "Single Attack" you have two options:


  • Swing your dagger - You roll a d20 and add +2 to the roll (the bonus indicated before the damage). If the number you roll meets or exceeds the AC of your opponent, you hit and do 1d3+1 damage (the number written in the parentheses). In addition, rolling a 19 or a 20 on the d20 roll to hit MAY allow you a second to-hit (assuming you hit with the first attack, the next to hit would also involve rolling a d20 and adding +2). If you hit on the second roll, you do critical damage and roll 2d3+2 damage (your damage twice).
  • Fire your crossbow - You roll a d20 and add +3 to the roll (the bonus indicated before the damage). Again, you have to meet or exceed the AC of your target to hit. You'll notice the critical range is the same for your dagger, so those rules noted above apply as well, and you may do 2d6 damage on a crit.

Now, the other thing to remember is that you still have a move action left. You could move up to your speed (as a halfling probably 20 feet or 4 squares). You could move before you use your weapon. You can also do some actions such as open a door or pull out an item as examples.

Where it says "Full Attack" you have two options as well:
Before I begin. I believe your stat block is wrong (I know, that confuses things). I will do a write-up here using the numbers you listed, and then explain why I think they're wrong after.


  • Swing your main hand dagger AND swing your off-hand dagger. In this case you roll a d20 and add +2 for your main hand (using the damage noted to the right), and roll a d20 a second time and add -4 for your off-hand (using the slightly reduced damage listed if you hit). This allows for two attacks. Otherwise it functions exactly as noted above.
  • Fire your crossbow - There is actually no reason (with an exception I won't get into) why you would ever fire your crossbow as a full attack. Crossbows may be fired as standard actions, so using a full action makes you lose your move action. You'll also see it's identical to the previously listed stats. I would cross this row out and forget it exists.

Now for why I think your stat block is wrong. You determine your to-hit by adding in your Base Attack Bonus (BAB) and the bonus of your strength (for melee attacks), or dexterity (for ranged attacks). So a dagger would be +2 to hit (level 1 rogue BAB = +0, strength 14 = +2). When two-weapon fighting, you get a second roll, but you take penalties on both rolls, specifically a -4 and a -8 (assuming you're not trained with the two-weapon-fighting feat). That means your +2 to hit, would become a -2 and a -6 to hit (if you had the two-weapon fighting feat, the penalties are reduced to -2 and -2, which would put you at +0 and +0 for your two attacks).

I know it's a lot to digest, so let me know if you have any questions. There are other rules as well (weapon finesse, your sneak attack die) etc. I did not cover here because frankly there was a lot of info in there already.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:

Mister Slanky considers himself a casual player. He's GM'd more than I have, was the V-C of my region for awhile, and so on and so forth.

Please do not label me something I never labeled myself. Please do not make definitions I did not make. Please do not make threads in my name misrepresenting the issue.

I am not a casual player. I am not a new player. That said, as VC I learned to champion their causes and I do have vested interest in watching them have fun.

That's all. I'm not even reading this thread.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:

So scenarios should be written without challenging DC's so that people who don't want to use the rules of the game to their advantage can roll dice and still succeed 50% of the time?

I'm really not seeing the validity in this argument at all.

Riiiiiiight...

So setting a trap DC to 34 (you know, to make it challenging), with a table that always takes 20, on somebody with a +14 to their perception skill, makes that trap 'challenging". Their ability to spot every trap, never set a trap off, and walk through ignoring all traps makes things challenging. Yet for the group with the slightly less awesome rogue (who's not relying on every perception boost known to mankind) with a +13 (equally cool, but not as awesome as the +14 guy), sets off every trap he encounters. That makes it challenging, to take 20 all the time and see them all (unless of course your perception doesn't let you, in which case that must be the challenge).

Or...

You could have a game where your traps are a little easier to spot, most people are rolling instead of taking 20 because they find it kind of fun, and occasionally (proportionally based on how good they are at spotting things), may set off a trap and have to deal with the consequences (that hopefully don't involve 4d6 damage for 4 rounds with no way to react should you fail the three saving throws involved).

I know which one seems like a challenge to me.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ryan Blomquist wrote:
In fact, most of the horror stories that make it back to me are cases of poor player tactics and falling into the bad habit of simply trying to "brute force" your way through the scenarios.

Ryan,

We had the following:


  • Level 6 Fighter/Oracle of Metal Beefstick
  • level 7 Monk/Rogue Trapfinder/high AC "tank" and damage dealer (ignores DR)
  • Level 6 Wizard specced for control spells
  • Level 6 Pistolero/Mysterious Stranger gunslinger
  • Level 6 Pure support cleric with direct damage
  • Level 5 Damage dealing sorcerer

In other words we had a nearly perfect group balance. I used my buffs wisely (casting them the best I could to take advantage of their durations), our rogue searched every single hallway twice-over for traps, our wizard thought out good strategies and uses for his control spells brilliantly, our cleric balanced her support and buff spells fantastically and our damage dealers dealt damage when needed. I can tell you we were a thoughtful group that didn't just jump the gun and use a big sword to solve everything.

We still...

Spoiler:
Had an AC 30 character hit twice with pretty average rolls with enough damage to bring her to near death. Had an AC 23 character get hit with enough damage to take her to negative -24 hit points in round 1. Had our rogue roll once on her own (and the GM rolling once with trap sense) a 11 and a 9, which weren't enough to spot the trap. Had three members of the group fail a DC 20 fort save (you know, with a 50-50 fail on a +10 FORT at level 6). Had the 4 members fail the equally difficult distraction/nausea check (you know, which prevents movement in the web altogether because you can't make the standard action to break free). That trap alone, all three saves? You're going to fail one minimum, probably two. We then had all but one character fail the DC 20+ Will save in the Ouidda fight (where it didn't matter because I went cheese-weasel and bought a clear spindle ioun stone).

This is just absurd. Just as absurd as Way of the Kirin (2-death adventure due to bad guys that were virtually impossible to avoid) which fortunately had an awesome enough story and premise to be not-bad.

Not happy, and I'm not happy the casual gamer is being marginalized the way they are with comments from the Venture Leadership just solidifying the "casual gamers need not apply" issue I'm seeing growing. What Jon said mirrors my feelings perfectly and I wish I had put it that eloquently to begin with.

I suggest taking a step back and take off your "I've played for ages" hat. Take off your "I've participated in Living Grayhawk" hat. Take off the hat of somebody who's hardcore (you have to be hardcore to want to be a VO, I've been there, I know). Now, consider what it's like for a new player to show up for a game, and get slaughtered because their experience, casualness, or even playstyle. Consider that the pregens are just meat sacks now in some of these scenarios. Now imagine how that makes you feel, are you going to show up again? No.

Too much of the game has begun to focus on the vocal crowd here on these forums, those that want the "challenge" of death every scenario. I like a challenge too, but apparently my feeling of a challenge does not involve being unconscious for most of the fight, or being knocked to 13 HP in the surprise round hoping that somebody can hit my corpse in time with a cure light. I'm sick and tired of it, and I'm tired of the few that do come in to complain being told that "no, this was easy" by the group that insists on making the level 6 wizard that can do 6d6+20 points of damage with a fireball marginalizing combats, or the archer that takes down a dragon in a single round of combat, or any other of the absurd builds I'm watching walking around locally. Sure, for them these are easy, but for the rest, frankly they're not.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
But overall I enjoy season 4 more than zero and one, which for both story and challenge were weak.

I don't think it's fair to ever bring season 0 into a discussion on difficulty (since it's not even Pathfinder), and with Season 1 everything was new and the training wheels were still on with the new system. I can't speak to the Season 4 metastory, since I haven't gotten anything out of it at all (which may be speaking to the Season 4 metastory, or it might betray the fact I've not played that many scenarios in Season 4).

That all said, for Season 4:


  • I've murdered half a table in the surprise round/first action in one game
  • While GMing nearly murdered a table another game where only the presence of an uber-build saved the day
  • I've watched a GM pull WAAAY back in order to prevent a series of multiple TPKs on a nearly perfectly-balanced but unoptimized group
  • I watched as a player two characters get steamrolled and killed by near-unbeatable NPC builds in another scenario
  • I've watched optimized builds plow through a scenario that would have killed everybody else had that one player not been there on two occasions.
  • One scenario broke my cardinal sin of gaming by making most of the table sit out most of the combat (oh this is fun)
  • The Disappeared was actually a fun scenario.
  • Oh, and in one scenario we played with Goblins, and it was fun.

That's 7/9 season 4's. At this point I think I've identified a trend, and it's one I'm tired of hearing isn't a problem.

And to go back to the original point, the biggest complaint about this particular scenario (the first point actually) was that it's back to the "you just get to watch". That's not fun. Why not let the players...

Spoiler:
just capture Torch in a fight with him? I mean he can just break out later, or maybe it's part of his master scheme. This is regardless of the fact that I think turning him into a "bad guy" was a major cop-out, especially when most people still agree with him and want to see him succeed.

Terrible, terrible scenario on multiple levels.

1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.