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. 2,816 posts (3,328 including aliases). 52 reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 15 Pathfinder Society characters. 4 aliases.


1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marcus Steelfeather wrote:
And now there's almost no good option for the head magic slot, just specific itens for specific builds. With this change, they could easily merge the head and headband slots and call it a day, and now we only need the big six. Horray for the diversity. #kappa

This, and most of the arguments about "limiting diversity" and "I'm going to quit Pathfinder Society now" are nothing more than hyperbole.

Hate the change, that's fine, but at least be honest about it. You don't like it. Changing one item doesn't "limit diversity" when everybody has the same item in the first place. Changing one item doesn't mean that there's "no good option". There's one less overpowered option. Saying that "you might as well get rid of the two slots" doesn't do anything to advance an argument that there's a lack of diversity now. In fact, the absolute contradictions in the arguments being made are amazing.

You may like that, and that's fine, but to expand it to the point that "everything sucks now" isn't doing anything to move your argument forward.

How about alternatives? Point out how much it WOULD have cost. Once you see how outrageous that is, try working with the system and propose a reasonable change. Instead of just saying "waaah, I hate things now" figure out why, really figure out why, and then propose the "right solution". Not in terms of sweeping "you shouldn't have" but rather in terms of what would have been realistic. Otherwise that's all this is, complaining.

Shadow Lodge

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

What I don't understand about some of the changes (Feather step boots and Jingasa especially) is that the function of the item could remain the same and the pricing redone to match it. i.e. extra gp for boots being continuous effect and the higher price for "luck" instead of deflection and the "avoid a crit" of the Jingasa. This would have keep them within the item creation rules without nerfing their powers (they would just cost more to be balanced).

Which would have then resulted in page after page of complaints that the price changed too much. The change to the item would have resulted in a hat in the tens of thousands of gold (there's a good post somewhere on the math behind it). You don't think that would have caused complaining too?

It was a broken item. A hideously broken item that outshined every other item available for a vast majority of the player base. Any change to the item, price or otherwise would have just led to just as many complaints as we have now. Paizo's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

And I'm very glad they did.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
9mm wrote:
Of course it doesn't, you think the other hats are worth the gold. They aren't. oh look, it makes sense now.

Just because we disagree on what is useful does not mean the hats aren't useful. This argument makes the assumption that unless it's cheap, and amazingly powerful, it's not useful.

Buffering caps more-or-less duplicate part of the effect on the cheap.

Disguise self can be quite useful.

I've been in plenty of situations that I wish I had a boat, and such I feel Besmara's Tricorne is a great item for its price.

Holy masks of the living gods, helms of comprehend language, maiden's helms, masks of conflicting energy, circlet of persuasion, grappler's masks, explorer's pith helmet all have their use. If I start setting the price point higher the list gets broader.

One overpowered head item was nerfed, and there are options if you're willing to look for them.

But then again, as I've seen elsewhere you'll simply say, "you're wrong these aren't useful", and I'll counter with "no, you're wrong, they're all useful" and we'll be at an impasse, and the Jingasa still won't be coming back.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.

I want clarification on this argument. How does removing a hat nearly every character had, and opening up the option for at least a dozen useful hats with different functions at or below the same price-point decrease diversity.

This argument keeps coming up and it so much doesn't make sense.

Shadow Lodge ****

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

As a fan of the brawling enhancement, and a person who has to rethink some ideas due to the change, I really, and I mean really don't understand the "I have to quit now" mentality regarding this specific armor. This is twice now this rhetoric has been thrown around.

The brawling enhancement was outright broken at the price point it was set at. Assuming that we cap out pretty nicely on gold, the brawling enhancement would, as previously written, only really cost you at most about 7,000 gp (the cost of going from +3 to +4), but realistically cost you 3,000 gp because it was probably bought as the first enhancement (going from +1 to +2).

Let's put that into perspective. A necklace of might fists, which is entirely stackable with that armor, can provide for extra effects in addition to the bonus to hit and damage from the armor, and for which the system was built, costs 8,000 gp at the first +2 bonus. So the two items combined in essence can give you a +4 bonus for the cost of 15,000 gp. Compare that to the price of the +4 amulet of mighty fists (34,000 gp) and you start to see the problem.

The reason the price was changed is because the effect was outrageously good for the price. It was brought in line of the two stacking. Does this suck? Again, as somebody with a character with this in the design, I had to tweak ideas a bit, but it's certainly not unfair, and the development team certainly doesn't owe you, or any of us, an explanation for what is very much a reasonable change. I'm sorry you feel that this "ruins your character to the point of unplayability" but hyperbole isn't getting this discussion anywhere.

Shadow Lodge ****

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

I'm not sure how I feel about the Jingasa. It was one of the every party member needs one items for our Eyes of the Ten run and it has come in very handy. However being good doesn't in and of itself seem to be reason to nerf an item.

It isn't like there are a bunch of other head slot items competing for use. Now that the Jingasa is no longer any good I doubt most PC's will fill the slot except for CHA based ones who will continue to use the circlet of persuasion.

See previous posts on the inaccuracy of the statement regarding "needing" the hat, and the one with the roughly 10 items at or below the cost of a Jingasa that nicely fill the head slot.

Heck, the buffering hat alone fills in the role of the Jingasa for crit reductions.

Shadow Lodge

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


Monday, May 30
08:00 AM – 01:00 PM #7-23: Abducted in Aether

I'm in two of the games that cause Mr. Slanky to feel bad for others at the table! And I'm quite curious about the Monday morning game of Abducted in Aether and just what madness Leg O' Lamb and Slanky have in mind, and if I can get in on it.

Does the name "THUNDERLIPS" mean anything to you?

Shadow Lodge ****

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

I'd accept bets against me, but with the release of Celestial Healing, I'd worry more about the future of Infernal Healing than anything. I think it's a precursor of things to come.

Shadow Lodge ****

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sadly this is going to DROP the diversity of items, not increase it.

Well as somebody that has chosen not to buy the Jingasa because, "why would my character that's never been to Tian Xia want to buy a Tian hat" and "why would my fighter who grew up in Tandan nobility want to not wear something of the highest fashion instead," I am apparently one of the few uniquely qualified to answer this. This won't drop the diversity if you look not for the mechanically superior item at the best price, but instead for useful, cool, or thematic items at a reasonable price.

Items to pop on my noggin I rather like include: Hats of disguise, Besmara's tricorne (which replicates another item that's saved my bacon on more than one occasion), buffering hats, holy masks of the living gods, helm of comprehend languages and read magic, maiden's helm, mask of conflicting energy, circlet of persuasion, grappler's mask, explorer's pith helmet (which is both an awesome and thematic item),

Everything on that list above are things I either have, or have seriously considered for various characters that are at or near the price point of a Jingasa. Most I pick because they're right for the character (my hellknight isn't buying a pith helmet). The list is really quite cool if you actually read into it and try to find something that fits your character and has its use. Not everything needs to be "always on" and the "best choice".

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
technarken wrote:
My -2 was one of my first characters, an investigator that I built into Unarmed Combat when I discovered the Brawling Enchantment. The character purchased Brawling Armor and an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists, then put the remainder of their wealth into other generally useful items. The character would have to either sell off an item like their Constitution Belt to afford the 'upgrade' to what they already had, develop a raging GMF Potion addiction, or retire the character.

It's actually this level of hyperbole that has me honestly happy about these changes.

Nobody needs a Jingasa on every character. I'm sure an unarmed investigator with an amulet of mighty fists and other items will not need to be 'retired' because of a loss of +2 hit/damage (if that were the case I'd need to retire every time I had the shaken condition). Some really, really underpriced items with some overly-powerful game effects were brought down in power. I'd still consider gloves of reconnaissance on the right character. But when there's a single item that's so vastly overpowered that it becomes so commonplace you see every min/max build with said item, there probably is a problem.

Might the pendulum swung too far in some places? Probably, but saying that 'this character sucks now' because of the loss of +2, or 'every high level scenario is a crapshoot now because of crits' really isn't honest at all. I have plenty of characters without any of these items, and I still have fun, and you will too.

Shadow Lodge ****

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

Aaaaaw man, you nerfed the price of the mithral waffle iron? What is our Chicken and Waffles salesman going to do?

Shadow Lodge ****

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Disk Elemental wrote:
The problem is with crits, the fact the Jingasa is required at upper levels tells you how borked the system is.

Having it on none of my characters including my 16, or my other eyes characters, or any of my 9+ characters, I think it fair to say that it is not "required".

This is really making a mountain out of a single item molehill that absolutely deserved every ounce of nerfing it got. And there's still the Buffering cap, and other items should you wish to make a crit resistant build (I have one, they're fun, I played it tonight, I negated three crits).

Shadow Lodge ****

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James McTeague wrote:
I'm sure no one's happy about the jingasa nerf, but it really needed to be done. Thanks Paizo!

I wouldn't say "no one". You should have seen me at PFS tonight.

When every single character you encounter has one, and you're asked every time by everybody why your characters do not...there be a problem.

Shadow Lodge

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

This is my favorite part about this awesome website - you can look in location A, B, and C, but forget that D, E, F, and G exist and then find out it says one thing in A, and another in G, but G trumps A.

Shadow Lodge

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

This rarely, if ever gets answered for general PFS tables at Paizo Con.

Specifically, there are 18 players signed up so it's more difficult to answer here (most players don't check the forums). That's three tables. Chances are there will be a solid low, and a solid high table.

Shadow Lodge ****

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

Welcome to the society. I will try to answer your questions in order.

Before I begin, I need to confirm that you have downloaded and read the Guide to the Pathfinder Society and read it cover to cover. You as an organizer are responsible for understanding the rules of PFS. Bring new player ID cards. Make sure your sign-up sheets for the event are properly configured prior to your first session so you can report properly.

Good Scenarios to prep for:
This is easy. Since this is your first session, with likely some fresh players, The Confirmation is your best bet. Intro to society, straightforward, and perfect for the situation.

Should I select something higher level?
Until you know if your local players even have higher level characters, no. All new players need to start out at level 1, so assuming based on your statements that this event could include anybody, you need to start with a 1-5 scenario. The beauty of The Confirmation is that even experienced players can replay it for credit.

Should I list the event?
Yes! If there are players that know PFS, they will want to know what's being run. If they don't, the blurb about the adventure is a great way to get people interested in the game and what story is about to be told.

How to peeps sign up?
Well that's up to you. There is no way to do that here on the Paizo site. That's the responsibility for each organizer. Some use Warhorn. Some use meetup (see our lodge for our local sign-up system). Others rely on sign up sheets at the store. Regardless, you're going to have to track sign-ups yourself (such as you noted, via e-mail).

Good luck!

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Stratton wrote:
The fact that it isn't scientific doesn't make it useless, or invalid, or any of the like. Unscientific polls have their legitimate uses, and this is one. It isn't being used to explain or to scientifically understand some phenomenon.

It should be invalid as a tool as it provides no more information than what's already being collected. Aggregate garbage is still garbage.

This is either qualitative or quantitative data. Just being made of numbers does not make it quantitative, and the small sample size combined with the polling bias makes it nothing more than qualitative data. Since this is qualitative data being discussed in this thread, then there's no reason to have this yet another thread on the same topic mucking up the waters.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Female Dwarf | HP:18/18 | AC: 19 (11 Tch, 18 Fl) | CMB: +3, CMD: 14 (18 vs. bull rush, 18 vs. trip) | F: +5*, R: +1*, W: +6* (*+3 vs. poison, spells, and spell-like abilities) | Init: +1 | Perc: +6, SM: +6 | Speed 20ft | Shirt Reroll: 1/1 Animal Focus: 1/1 | Spells: 1st 2/2 | Active conditions: None.

Sigríðr pauses, "I could cut the eyes out of a goblin and you could shove them in your peeper-holes to fix your s&+~ human vision, would that work?"

The clearly visible response of Anya's face changes her tune, "Fine, back to town."

Shadow Lodge ****

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

Opposed to polls (and everything represented by this poll).

It's isn't even a data point you can give to the CC. This isn't scientific and cannot/should not be used to make a decision. What's the point? We have the thread with people discussing, just leave it there.

Shadow Lodge ****

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

I'd rather see resources (in terms of campaign leadership and VOs) spent elsewhere than mucking around with hard-mode requirements.

But this is coming from a guy that quit PFS for some time over frustration over everything going to "hard-mode".

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Really, I just don't want to expand the argument of 'you need to provide your own wand' to 'you need to repay my use of consumables on your behalf'.

I pretty much agree with this.

I'm against allowing repayment of used consumables. Either you are cooperating and use your consumables as necessary to succeed at a mission, or you don't. At some point, those who refuse to use them for the good of the team, will have the team stop using consumables on them as well.

Its a self-correcting circumstance.

Just so opinions for and against are counted properly, I'll just throw out a, "I can't believe I agree with Andy" and leave it at that.

Shadow Lodge ****

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't know what else to say. Nerves are very RAW up here right now.

Do we really need to include the whole RAW, RAI argument in this thread too? We've told you about this Andy, you can't have it both ways.

Shadow Lodge ****

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm really not getting your point.

Let's stop talking in euphemisms then.

Paizo really, and I mean really upped the requirements for being a Venture Captain, or any Venture Officer really, awhile ago. They're now significant enough, I as a former VC, wouldn't even consider applying for the position due to the fact that it's now pretty much an unpaid "job". To be clear, I'm not using that term lightly, it's a job with far more responsibilities than empowerment/advantages that easily requires at least part-time employment levels of dedication. This unpaid sales/marketing job, may come with advantages in the form of the ego boost and sense of self-importance it grants but also comes with access to product. But let's be honest, how many VCs aren't already subscribers, so this benefit is far less valuable than it would seem. In any case, the job requires dedication, time, and access to personal resources in the form, quite frankly, as your own money out of pocket to market the hell out of the product.

The new requirement requires that you "take the lead in organizing" at two or more conventions. This doesn't mean "helping out" this means "organizing". VLs have similar responsibilities. This was an enormous burden already put on the venture core. Originally, VOs were required to help out at PaizoCon or Gen Con, where "helping out" comes, not insignificantly, out of their own pockets as travel dollars. Now, the VOs are responsible for setting up and organizing convention play locally. Operative term here is convention, which is pretty explicitly stated. Some areas have lots of conventions, some do not. So in order to meet this goal, the VOs now need to start working on creating their own "conventions" in order to make this arbitrary and in no-way easy goal. In many cases, the VOs, which are already paying for this "privilege" to be a VO, are now needing to start paying for a lot more out of their own pocket. Some areas, such as Minneapolis/St. Paul, were able to negotiate better rates with event space at the local "game store" (which is a game store in name only, since it's really the convention space for organized play of Asmodee/Fantasy Flight Games) in order to meet this burden. This burden takes at least a dozen people weeks/months to pull off, because you know...organizing a convention is in no way easy.

So, by deciding to call an enormous classification of convention play "game days" simply because of venue, they have made meeting this requirement fundamentally more difficult. Flippantly calling it "a rose by any other name" is not only an insult, but absolutely offensive to the amount of work that these good people put into running things for their local players. Something I might add, that they decided to do because it was helping people, not just helping us play our game (see the commentary about the amount of money raised for charity).

So yes, this arbitrary decision to start calling one thing a rose, and one thing not a rose, when both actually are does smell. It smells absolutely rotten, and I'm actually embarrassed for Paizo at this point at the harm that this has done to the relationship with local players.

Shadow Lodge ****

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


We don't want to be a "Game Day with boons" we want to be a Convention. It sounds like it's dumb, but it matters. I plan game days all the time. They don't take me nearly as long as planning this convention that's under threat of Game Day.
Rose by another name and all that. I don't see what the difference is if its just in a name?

Ahem...

Venture Captain Requirements wrote:
Take the lead organizing Pathfinder Society activities at two or more conventions a year. Conventions must have 15+ sessions over three days to qualify. These conventions do not need to be in your community.

A rose by any other name is not always a rose.

Shadow Lodge ****

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

This is the saddest thing I've read today. And I post the news online for a living.

Being punished by not being called a convention simply because we get space at a retail venue. A retail venue that RENTS the event center to us. A convention that only asks for BOONS not gift certificates because we're operating out of a retail venue and want people to purchase the vendor's inventory.

A retail venue that gave us probably $1,000 in product support for rewards too because they recognize that we can all work together, not apart. Don't forget that.

Then there's the worst part. I also read the following out of this post...

"Hello Venture Officers. Because we want to make sure you're helping make PFS what it should be, we're going to require you support conventions to keep our hobby helpful. It seems only fair to us."

*Musings behind the scenes...*

"Oh, and we're going to raise the bar for what we call a convention. Good luck with that."

I was a VC, and the amount of money I spent out-of-pocket to support this hobby was outstanding. I did so with a smile, because I honestly enjoy the hobby and the game. I'm trying to imagine though what it would have been like if this had popped up during my tenure. First turning this into a job, and then pulling those requirements and turning them into something more difficult to achieve is just astounding to me. I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like knowing that I fought tooth and nail to get a more inexpensive game space available for me, only to find out that because it's "attached to a game store" it no longer "counts".

I've been skeptical since the addition of the RVC system; that skepticism has changed to outright distrust with this latest announcement. Seeing what just happened, gutting what became the one convention I really, and I mean really looked forward to to a "game day" because of this kind of bureaucracy.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TimD wrote:
I have to concur with Drogon with the concerns here.

Here's another hearty "Drogon, keep up the discussion, because you're right" from the peanut gallery.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jon dehning wrote:
A three day con with over 75 tables that raised $3,755 for charity is now a game day.

Wait, we're a game day now? Is this because we have a local "game store" that serves as awesome convention space, but because it's a "game store" it's no longer a convention? This is just absurd. This store would bend over backwards for us, and the dollar totals for sales that I heard they pulled in over the convention time vastly, vastly outweigh what we pulled in for charity too.

I hated conventions and the crap about them before; this just takes the cake.

Shadow Lodge

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

Make me a product that 80% of the population can use, and I'll stop b$!~!ing".

Deliver a product rather than a promise on a platform I can use, and I'll really stop b+!&@ing.

There are plenty of software authors that have figured this out, and the fact that those of us that won't shell out more money for yet another platform get the shaft, yet again, is getting annoying (I'm looking at you Wolflair and Hero Lab).

Shadow Lodge ****

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

This is a bit of dead horse, since a campaign decision was already made about three years ago, but due to the change in leadership, I'm respectfully asking for a reconsideration to not providing an alternative to the Improved Leadership ability of Battle Heralds. The original thread is here.

Battle Heralds receive Improved Leadership:
A battle herald with the Leadership feat adds her inspiring command bonus to her leadership score.

The final decision was...

Mike Brock wrote:
After taking a look at Improved Leadership, we will not be replacing it with anything else. Since the class still functions without that ability, and could be altogether ignored by someone who doesn't have the Leadership in normal home play, their is no need to make an exception here.

The request is to find an alternative to Improved Leadership for Battle Herads, due to the the Leadership feat being illegal for PFS. There are plenty of precedents for swapping out a class feature that uses a game mechanic that is not appropriate for PFS. I've included a non-comprehensive list of examples where class abilities were swapped out due to the base feature not being part of PFS (often crafting, sometimes dream magic or reincarnation effects).

Examples of class abilities swapped out:

  • Core scribe scroll change for wizards
  • Champions of balance bloodline swap out for Spontaneous Generation
  • Agent of Rebirth ability for Faith & Philosophies domain
  • Shaman swap outs for Craft Wondorous Item and awaken
  • Nature oracle changes for awaken
  • Forgemaster replacing both Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Master Smith
  • Energy siege shot and arcane cannon changes for Bonded Witch
  • Promethean alchemists and promethean disciple discovery exchange
  • Occult adventures sorcerer bloodline changes for ghost whip
  • The swap out of dream voyage for the Psychic
  • Normal and greater create mindscape being changed for patrons
  • The best example I can find that involves Leadership directly is that Sentinel prestige classes explicitly give up their "Righteous Leader" special ability at level 8 for persuasive.

    I would ask there to be a reconsideration of this class ability, in the hope to find an alternative that would be class/ability appropriate. Thanks!

    Shadow Lodge ****

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

    Here's our path to figuring out Ghostbane Dirge.

    Ghostly qualities include...
    Ghosts have the incorporeal subtype and the incorporeal defensive ability.

    The Incorporeal subtype reads...
    An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality.

    The Incorporeal Monster Rules reade..
    An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.

    So the ruling would be

    A casting of ghostbane dirge is subject to the Incorporeal Monster Rule of "Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature".

    Assuming that you make the 50% check, save is successful, etc. Then the subject takes full damage, doesn't get a 50% miss chance on spells/spell-like abilities, as noted.

    Now, if you can get ghost touch (not ghostbane dirge) on your weapons, then rather than referecing the Incorporeal Monster Rule, you have to go to the Incorporeal Subtype and read that..."An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality."

    At this point they're subject to critical hits and sneak attack.

    It's kind of a double whammy. My group didn't use the ghostbane dirge to cancel out the Monster Rule, but rather ghost touch to cancel out the incorporeal subtype.

    Aaah Pathfinder rules complications and the need to look in four places for the rule.

    The clarification
    Regardless of what I just wrote though, the discussion of ghostbane dirge is moot per this post here.

    Shadow Lodge

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

    Yup - pretty clear we still have a problem. Considering when I'm running this next I'm wondering if we have an ETA update.

    Shadow Lodge ****

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Mark Stratton wrote:
    One of the things I try to be very clear about is avoiding using a public venue for a private game. If I am going to run a private game for PFS credit (for example, my home Rise of the Runelords campaign), I wouldn't run that in a public venue - I would run that at my home, or that of one of the players.

    Disagree wholeheartedly. Gaming at its heart is a social activity. Who are any of us to deny a group of friends the ability to play in a public place where they may see other friends? Maybe this originates from being able to play in a region with upwards of 6-7 major game stores with multiple tables and what is designed to be a hugely social atmosphere with on-site food and in at least one case, dozens of tables. If I see friends playing "private" games in a public space though, it means they're inviting any of us to interact with them, maybe not at the level of the game they are playing, but certainly as friends.

    In the case of trying to pull in PFS characters it even means being able to say, "well this is a private game, but on <insert day here> there's a great public game for you to try.

    So for me, I'll always welcome private games in public spaces.

    Shadow Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Leg o' Lamb wrote:
    Marc Radle wrote:
    There's a nearby Thai food place???? Awesome! How close to the hotel? Anyone have a name or more info? :)
    It is literally across the street from the hotel. I hear the Drunken Noodles are quite good.

    They're fantastic! Both going down and coming up. I strongly suggest getting to taste them twice by visiting the booze shop next door.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Silbeg wrote:
    FYI - a little added tidbit pointed out by Mister Slanky... in D&D grapple rules if you were grappled, you did not threaten.

    Hey now. Just because I remember the whole "you have to enter your opponents square" crap, doesn't mean you need to drag my name into it!

    Quit pointing out I'm old enough to know this.

    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 Dwarf | HP:18/18 | AC: 19 (11 Tch, 18 Fl) | CMB: +3, CMD: 14 (18 vs. bull rush, 18 vs. trip) | F: +5*, R: +1*, W: +6* (*+3 vs. poison, spells, and spell-like abilities) | Init: +1 | Perc: +6, SM: +6 | Speed 20ft | Shirt Reroll: 1/1 Animal Focus: 1/1 | Spells: 1st 2/2 | 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.

    1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 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.