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

Mystic Lemur's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,191 posts (1,225 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well that's not correct (Edit: referring to Michael's post). And as for the nice folks in the rules forum directing you here, that wasn't correct either. Putting "PFS" in a rules question doesn't make it a PFS question. Crits work the same in PFS as they do in regular Pathfinder.

The allegation that VOs are discussing rules in the VO boards, getting them wrong, and then using their status as VOs to spread these wrong interpretations is troubling.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't play an "Unchained Ninja" because it doesn't exist. There are already rules for retraining a character because "I'm tired of playing it." Those retraining rules have a cost, as well they should. Retraining for free is for new characters (never played at level 2) or characters who have the rules changed out from under them.

"I'm bored" is neither of those.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
(Although - because this is an issue with the system, everyone *has* experienced it, they may just not have identified this as the cause. How many people have played with a person who has no idea how to play their 9th-level PC? I'd be interested in seeing how many of those issues correlate with how many levels of Emerald Spire/Thornkeep/Free RPG Day modules the person has played, but that sort of evidence is unlikely to be available. Of course, it's hard to disentangle the various factors at play, and local issues would likely dominate anyway.)

Alright, I'll bite. I know of two players who never really developed an understanding of their characters who leveled up to 7 with Thornkeep. One was playing a white-haired witch based on a build he found online. He eventually stopped playing the character because he never could get it to do what he wanted. The other was a Wizard whose spell list might have been composed solely of Magic Missile for all I ever saw cast. Neither of these, in my opinion, were really the fault of Thornkeep itself. Both were newer players playing characters they were new to, in a convention environment where the games tended to be back to back to back. Tell me you wouldn't stumble a bit going from level 2 to level 7 in 72 hours.

I myself am playing my first ever witch in Emerald Spire. I'm having so much fun playing my witch, I think I'm going to make it my "Eyes of the Ten" character. I would love to be able to play her more, but not if it meant having to break immersion and play other things in between levels. We play once a week at most (usually more like 1-2 times a month) so I don't have to rush to level her up between games. I think the time crunch at a convention, or general player inexperience is where the problems come in.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The table of credit issue is not going to be fixed. The system recognizes only two types of adventures: Scenarios (worth one table of credit) or Modules (worth two). Paizo decided the resources to fix the system issue weren't worth it compared to the relatively minor problem of some GMs getting two tables worth of credit for a scenario length module.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I went through Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls. There is more than enough xp to take a party of four PC on Medium advancement to 2nd level. Why do you feel that a party of 4-6 PCs who complete the challenges required to advance a level, shouldn't advance a level? How is that fair?

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:
It doesn't have a target...
Yes it does.

Well shucky darn. And here I thought that not having a Target line to go along with the Area line meant it didn't have one. Guess I have to look up Invisibility to see how Invisibility Sphere works. Really hope they clean things like this up if they ever put out Pathfinder 2.0

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tanoshi wrote:
To be fair, in this particular circumstance... we'd been fighting primarily things that either died before I got a chance to do anything but cast haste, or things that were 100% immune to most of my sorcerous tricks. So when this guy showed up, I saw my moment to shine and I took it!

How dare you. Don't you know your moment to shine is supposed to be a solemn occasion where you do something only marginally better than anyone else can. You're not allowed to bust up in there all fabulous covered in sequins screaming "I'm HERE!" Please try to shine more dully in the future. ;)

From the GM side of things, I can see how frustrating it is to have the "end boss" taken out in the first round. But I try to take a step back and realize that my players put in time and effort to be as good as they are, and it would be selfish of me not to allow them to do the things they worked to be good at doing.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David_Bross wrote:
A similar scenario occured when I was a player. 3/6 people at the table could always act in the surprise round. The GMs solution was to have stuff happen in a "pre" surprise round where NPCs got in position for an ambush, and then combat broke out of the subsequent round. The payoff was the scenario ran as written, rather than us stiffling the NPCs attempts entirely as they tried to get in position for the ambush, that would have sent the scenario off the rails quickly.

So, the GM cheated to negate specific player investment in their characters, and you're okay with that? In an organized play environment, especially, if I put in the effort to make my character do something most can't, I certainly wouldn't want it invalidated by GM fiat.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I noticed yesterday that Seoni in the Pathfinder Origins comic looks like she's wearing a haramaki. If it's good enough for the iconic, it's good enough for me.

Shadow Lodge ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:
Amazingly good post about Opportunity Cost and Group Dynamics leading to a clear preference for a competing system.

Well, there it is, folks. 5th edition is out and, in at least one part of the country, is kicking our asses. We, as representatives of the hobby, can't just rock along like everything is the same now as it was when PFRPG had no real competitor.

There are amazing PFS groups across the world, and there are some that could use improvement. We should all take stock of our local scene and come up with ways to be more inclusive and friendly to newcomers so we can continue the success of a hobby we all love.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't know. Joe hasn't posted in almost a year (what happened to him anyway?) and it wasn't saved on the internet archive. You'd have to get it from someone who had a copy from before.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
As a GM I'd probably just break the rules.

Please reconsider either your stance, or your willingness to GM. The system can't be fixed if people aren't using it correctly to know what's broken, and breaking rules from the outset sets a bad precedent for future GMs.

Shadow Lodge ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to point out that your alignment doesn't dictate whether an action is "evil" (or any other alignment for that matter). An action is either, itself, so blatantly good/evil/lawful/chaotic that it wouldn't matter who did it, or it's such a grey area that the only thing that matters is your intention and the results.

The reason why your character won't accept surrender determines the alignment of the action. If it's "because dragging around a bunch of 'surrendered' bad guys who might make trouble or try to escape is dang inconvenient," then you're looking at the south side of Chaotic Neutral at best.

BlackOuroboros wrote:
Generally, it's at least considered bad form to bayonet the wounded, if not a war crime.

In the real world where "the wounded" can be out of the fight for weeks or months, it is pointless and immoral to target them. In a world where that same guy can get a pat on the back from a healer and be back to full fighting capacity in less than six seconds, targeting the wounded becomes an important tactical decision. Again, intention and result are what make the difference in the alignment of an action.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know I'm late to the party, but I'd like an honest assessment of my item. I was happy to make the cull, but I never expected to get to Top 32. This is a learning experience for me. The first thing I noticed was that I should have added rage as a spell requirement.

Staff of the Beast Within
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 9th
Slot none; Price 40,000 gp; Weight 5 lbs.

Description
Made from stout cedar root with pawprints of various animals burned into the wood, this staff is hot to the touch. When held, the pawprints move, giving the impression that the animals are walking down the length of the staff and back again. It allows the use of the following spells.

  • Animal Aspect (1 Charge)
  • Savage Maw (1 Charge)
  • Beast Shape II (2 Charges)
  • Aspect of the Wolf (3 Charges)

In addition, if the wielder of the staff of the beast within has her own rage class ability (such as barbarian's rage, bloodrager's bloodrage, or skald's inspired rage) she may spend 10 rounds of this ability to recharge one charge of the staff as if she had spent a 5th level prepared spell or spell slot. A calm emotions spell or effect has a chance to dispel any spell effect originating from the staff of the beast within in addition to its normal effects, and causes the staff to be suppressed as if targeted by a successful dispel magic for as long as the staff is in the area of effect.

Construction Requirements Craft Staff, animal aspect, aspect of the wolf, beast shape ii, savage maw; Cost 20,000 gp

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Aegis vs. Aegis. How do I vote for one without being Aegist?

bah-dum tiss

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just saw my item's doppleganger. Good to know that someone else was thinking along the same lines I was. Don't know if it's "great minds think alike" or "fools seldom differ," but it works for me.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JJ Jordan wrote:
mamaursula wrote:
JJ Jordan wrote:
Your wife is voting too? Cool.

This may come as a shock, but some of the wives enter, vote and even win. I'm looking at Victoria.

I am happy to hear that gaming households can thrive and survive. I thought they were only legends.

My wife and my mother-in-law make up a third of my home game group. Yep, I'm on good terms with my mother-in-law.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess I'm the only one that sees LeVar Burton.

Butterfly in the sky
I can shoot twice as high

Shadow Lodge ***

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Eryx_UK wrote:
Why do you feel the need to do it? Do you not trust your lodge players?

Tired of seeing this. Following the rules (which require exactly what this GM has been doing, not signing until the sheet is filled out by the player) does not mean you don't trust your players. Yes, many GMs handwave this portion. Yes, I'm one of them.

But when a GM decides to actually follow the rules, I'm not going to get my undies in a bunch because of it. Either I've got my stuff together, or I play a pregen.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For anyone who cares, I made a copy of the file without all the crazy editing: Copy of the Complete Professor Q's Guide to the Patfinder Wizard.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rei wrote:
Alternatively, the party face is a paladin, and they get directly asked "are you Pathfinders?" at which point either the paladin or the whole party are up a creek...

Paladins shouldn't lie, but they don't have to tell the truth. "Are you Pathfinders?"

Paladin should answer, "Are you kidding? Pathfinders would have to be crazy to show their faces around here."

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking as a GM, it makes me uncomfortable when I don't know the rules my player is using. If you want to say I don't trust my players, that's fine. Maybe I don't. Maybe I shouldn't trust the player that keeps asking me how [common rule interaction] works when they suddenly show up with something out of the ACG that I haven't had a chance to look over yet. And that's a common book! What about the myriad player companions that most people just dip one or two things out of?

And before you say "Well that player resource has been out for X monts/years/whatever" let me remind you that there are common rules (light and darkness spells, Take 10 and Take 20, Attacks of Opportunity, just to name a few) that have been practically unchanged since the year 2000. How many people do you trust to know those rules correctly without having to reference them?

So yes, on a practical level I often have to take my players at their word, even when I have cause to believe their word is suspect. It's better than letting my ignorance of their character slow the game to a crawl while I look up everything. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In this thread: Evidence that sometimes builds that seem broken are really just illegal.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Does this mean you also believe I should not be allowed to play this character? Would someone be justified to say, "Sorry, I don't like your character. Play something else or don't play at all."

I will allow any player to play any legal build, unless I have specific personal reasons that I would prefer not to game with that player. I will not, however, force other players to play with you if they don't want to. I also will not pull any punches (nor will I specifically target you, as some have said in this thread).

But, if you are so inept that you get other characters killed, I will be the first to suggest that they speak to the Venture Officer to try to get the deaths overturned. Your choices affect more than your own character.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're running Bloodcove Disguise, and the highest charisma in the group are the two 10s.

Well, it's trouble for them.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how Fox's Int 9 Wizard (barely) contributes to the party by *gasp* casting spells. Maybe he could, I don't know, be better at spellcasting if he didn't have to rely solely on magic items?

I just flat out don't get it. Someone with an 18 Strength and a 9 Intelligence just isn't going to be a Wizard. They just aren't suited to it. They're not going to spend years as an apprentice without learning a single cantrip. The Master isn't going to waste the time on someone clearly not capable of casting the simplest spells. How do they even know that they're a wizard, and just not someone really good at UMD?

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:
I have a character who has been killed once and charmed two more times by harpies. I would hope if someone says the word harpy, by now he'd be allowed to put in earplugs without making a knowledge roll.

But it's not you making the knowledge check to identify the creature as a harpy. You can't put in the earplugs just because you see a flying humanoid creature that starts to open it's mouth. Well, you can, but that could be a gargoyle and a wasted action.

Similarly, if you want to say your character knows that blunt weapons are better against skeletons, that's fine. But is that a regular ole' skeleton over there, or is it a skeletal champion? A lich? Sometimes your characters should make the wrong decision based on past experience. If you're only metagaming when it helps you, you are cheating.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless you put your experience into knowledge skills, you haven't retained the information you've encountered. There's a huge difference between playing a pick-up game of football, and watching game tapes and studying playbooks and working out to make yourself the best football player you can.

No one is expecting the Wizard to be better in melee just because the fighter told him how to swing the sword better. Thusly, it is not reasonable to expect the 8 Int fighter to remember more than the DC 5-10 basics just because the Wizard gave him a lecture about the monster in the heat of battle.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If that's the general rule, you'd need to show the specific that grants exception.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I start with the town, and I play it by feel how "into it" the group is. If they're the type that just want to "get down to business" then I usually make it pretty easy to find the entrance and get to it. If they really seem to dig exploring the town, it can be a while before they even remember they're there to delve a dungeon.

I've never had the first part run longer that 4-5 hours, though. And we only came up on that with a fairly "talky" group.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

These might help, although they were written with Society play in mind: GM 101 and GM 201.

The most important things are a working knowledge of the rules (easier in PbP, because you have time to just look them up) and confidence. Both come with experience, so get to it. ;)

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And to add to James' post, these rules can be found in the Guide to Organized Play, a free rules supplement that is pretty much required reading to play or run PFS.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope not. My hand drawn maps are usually unrecognizable, pale imitations of the maps in the scenarios.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Go Sorcerer|Oracle. It's like being a Mystic Theurge but awesome. Sorry for the generic answer, but that's not a whole lot to go on. :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Granted, you are now even more gruff. Gruff enough for THREE billy goats. Bridge trolls whisper your name in fear.

I wish bridge trolls whispered my name in fear. :(

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Go local sport ball team!

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Master of the Fallen Fortress (replayable module), followed by the Confirmation or First Steps (replayable scenarios), followed by the other. That will get all the characters to second level without "wasting" any non-replayable options.

For future characters, there are also several replayable modules that grant a full level (3xp).

But my all time favorite "first" scenario is Silent Tide (Season 0, Scenario 1).

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Netopalis wrote:
I would totally watch a show about fox lawyers called "Kitsune Legal".

Dibs on a kitsune Inquisitor named Denny Crane. :P

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Seran Ash wrote:

I am, however, still waiting for the link to where Canaialism is evil per the campaign admins.

S.

Here you go.

What intelligence score denotes Sentience? 2, 3, or higher? 5 is the lowest a PC could possibly have, so somewhere between 1-4 is okay to eat, but 5+ is right out. Torturing sentient creatures is certainly evil, and I could see ruling that hunting sapient creatures is evil, but eating dead flesh is no more evil than eating dead plant matter. If we weren't meant to be part of the food chain, we wouldn't be made of food.

As for the desecration of dead bodies, desecration is a crime of intent, and the intent determines the alignment. Carving a cow into different cuts of meat is not desecration of the dead cow, unless you are doing it to purposely offend someone, or to express your hatred of cows in general or that cow specifically.

I declare knee-jerk reactions in alignment threads to be evil. I'm making a notation on all of your chronicle sheets. :P

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:


Be honest, when was the last time a successful knowledge/linguistics/int-based check made or broke a scenario?

The Confirmation. And if that's any indication of things to come we're all going to have to start treating our characters as actual Pathfinders. About damn time, too.

Sovereign Court ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I came to you because I heard you needed an army. I'm an army. Now all you seem to want is people who talk fancy, look fancy, and smell like a god-awful flower shop. Well, that ain't me...

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So a fireball can hit everyone in the kidneys, but magic missile, which never misses, can only hit one person in a vital spot? Good one, Jason.

Shadow Lodge ***

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking as a GM, I would rather someone point out the correct rule every time. That way I learn to do better, the player learns to do better, and I learn to be on the lookout for other people using that rule incorrectly. New players are the perfect ones to correct, because you need to get them playing the right way before their mistakes become bad habits, which then become "I know it works this way. I can't find it, but that's how we've always done it."

Everything else, I'm pretty much right with you. In combat may not be the best time to tell your epic tale of victory (unless you're a bard). Contributing nothing to the scenario from fear of spoiling it can be just as bad as spoiling it if the players are truly stuck and your character could come up with a solution.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex McGuire wrote:
Cool story! Why did you need an atonement though?

Clearly by dying at the hands of such an unworthy opponent, I lost my Barbarian membership card and had to atone to get it back. I mean, and Ex-Barbarian is nothing more than an ill-tempered Warrior. :D

Shadow Lodge ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

7th level Kyra killed Rodrik, my 8th level Invulnerable Rager, in one hit! (And it was awesome!)

Two weekends ago at Play On Con, I had the privilege of playing my dwarf barbarian at a table of 5-13: Weapon in the Rift. It was the most entertaining round of PFS I've had in quite some time, which is saying something since I had said the same thing about my first ever session of The Confirmation that I had played the night before. All in all, it was a great weekend.

Spoiler:
The party was hopelessly outclassed by everything we encountered. From the very first hallway, to the very first puzzle, through the very first encounter took nearly about 3 hours of slapstick fit for a Three Stooges film. I was brought below 0hp 3 times that fight, while everyone else tried to keep the other [redacted] away from our only healer, the traitorous Kyra, curse her very name.

Skipping ahead a bit, my barbarian has had some... bad experiences with haunts in the past. So when he walked into a room and felt the temperature drop, he advanced to the rear as quickly as he could manage. It turned out not to be a haunt, but instead a dastardly [other redacted]! As his companions stood there, transfixed by it's arcane mumbo jumbo, he took it upon himself to unlimber his bow and fire upon the creature with specially prepared arrows. Clearly no marksman, the arrow went wide and he drew another hoping for a clear shot. The next round, I threw caution to the wind, and had him charge in wielding one of the specially prepared arrows. After a direct hit for what seemed like fairly low damage, I realized that I had not remembered to RAGE! (I'm telling you, the whole thing was a comedy of errors.) The next round (remembering that I had Ghost Rager, and no need for those silly arrows- hey, I don't get to play very often. Cut me some slack), I punched the [other redacted] in it's face with my cestus, dropped my bow and drew my "real" weapon, a dorn-dergar. We traded blows for about three rounds total, while most of the party either babbled incoherently or smacked themselves in the face. It was just me and the monk, toe to trailing ectoplasmic vapor against this seemingly unkillable thing! Each time Rodrik took a hit, I could feel his sanity cracking. After the third hit, my Barbarian was on the ground, unable to form a coherent thought (some would say that was no great change). It was then that Kyra revealed her true colors...

She claims that she confused my prone form with the enemy that had been trying to kill all of us. Seeing "it" helpless on the floor, she did the only thing she could: A coup-de-grace*! Seeing the mistake, the monk easily disarmed the cleric. That didn't stop her, though. She reached down and snapped poor Rodrik's neck! (Well, in actuality she only managed to deal 1 point of damage past my damage reduction, but it was enough to force a Fortitude save.) As I rolled the dice, I said the magic words "I can only fail on a 1." And sure enough, I look down to see a 1 staring back up at me. It was glorious.

And that is how an 8th level "Invulnerable" Rager was killed by an unarmed, level 7 pregen Kyra. And yes, I paid for an atonement to clear my "Ex-Barbarian" status after that scenario. The cleric and monk eventually brought down the [other redacted] at which point they decided it was better to cut their losses than to go on without my help (such as it was). Even after being brought back with a breath of life, Rodrik was unconscious with 12 Wisdom damage and Kyra didn't have a Restoration prepared. It was a failed mission, but for me it was worth every second.

*To be clear, the coup de grace was actually my idea. The GM said he was fine with it, and the player of the cleric thought the idea was hilarious enough to give it a shot. I don't want anyone to think this was some jerk GM or player who "did this to me".

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thinking on this a little further, I'm not sure I support the rule change. I don't like the idea of preparing after the fact. I don't like the idea of being pressured to solve other people's problems.

Another character's lack of planning should not be an emergency that I have to solve. "But it's okay, I'll pay you back" just doesn't make up for you not being prepared in the first place.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mike Brock expects us to use common sense in our interpretations because they don't have the time to list out every possibility that someone might possibly misconstrue. If you aren't level 4-5, you don't get level 4-5 rewards. Don't like it? Don't apply the credit to that character.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can't get the subtier 4-5 items unless you are getting credit for subtier 4-5. The only way to get credit for tier 4-5 is to apply the credit to a character that is level 4 or level 5. If you are level 1, 2, or 3, you are not level 4 or 5.

Why is this thread so long?

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The year of Bacon.

1 to 50 of 127 << 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.