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

Mystic Lemur's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,075 posts (1,108 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,075 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ***

Murder Hobos.

Shadow Lodge ***

Thanks for the update, John. Happy Turkey Day, and to you as well, Mitch.

Shadow Lodge ***

UndeadMitch wrote:
This thread wasn't meant for speculation,

And yet, here we are. Speculating.

UndeadMitch wrote:

this thread is about asking leadership if anything was going to happen with Wardens, since it had been close to two months since the last time they said they were working on Wardens. They went from saying it should be done by the end of January to saying it was almost done in May to saying that it was in progress at the beginning of September.

So if leadership happens to see this, is anything still happening with Wardens?

And they might answer you, just like they answered (in good faith) when they said it would be January, then May, then September. Why should they answer again, considering the response for them missing deadlines? Better, at this point, to just put it out when it's done and not list another deadline they might not be able to keep.

Shadow Lodge ***

UndeadMitch wrote:

Was anyone asking you why this hasn't been sanctioned yet? I haven't, my most recent comment was a response to Soluzar. My response to you had noting to do with what you just said

I was responding to your comment. It doesn't matter that more recent content has been sanctioned and WotRF hasn't. I even provided my speculation as to why that might be.

Speculation. Like everything else in this thread. So unbunch those undies and go back to patiently waiting like the rest of us.

Shadow Lodge ***

And? I don't work for Paizo, so I don't know the reason it hasn't been sanctioned yet. Whatever the reason, be assured there is one.

My best guess, there was an issue with either the content or the formatting of the chronicle sheets, and getting them re-done is at the bottom of the priority list.

Shadow Lodge ***

James Risner wrote:
  • Shaky interpretations of the rules

Curious about this one. In my experience they've been invaluable at rounding up all the FAQs, and developer posts, and such into the same place as the rules text.

Shadow Lodge ***

It's a change from the 13th running of First Steps, or Master of the Fallen Fortress, or We be Goblins! (Who am I kidding, WbG! is always awesome), but it's still the same scenario with some details changed to protect the innocent.

I can't wait to see this year's 1-2, #6-10 The Wounded Wisp.

Shadow Lodge

If I'm understanding your question correctly, the next step up from 2d10 is, I think, 4d8. 2d12 (What even does 2d12?) would be 6d6.

There is another thread HERE that hasn't received a FAQ response yet.

Shadow Lodge

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 ***

TheInnsmouthLooker wrote:
I'm also patiently waiting for the WotRF chronicles, but I've already started running it as a home game. Hopefully it'll be released before we finish, but I'm not holding my breath.

You cannot apply credit for portions played before it is sanctioned, unless they make an exception for this module. The same was true with Adventure Paths when they started to sanction them. We were told we had to play them again, or run a PFS-legal character through the sanctioned portions.

Shadow Lodge ***

Would be nice to let players spend other characters' prestige on their dead character. It would have to be all 16 from the same other character, though, not a horde of 1xp GM babies.

Shadow Lodge ***

My brother will be sad.

Shadow Lodge ***

Having the flipmats makes Thornkeep and Emerald Spire fly. Much easier to remove the paper covering the unexplored area than to have to draw out each room.

There is a lot of RP potential in the towns (Thornkeep, and Fort Inevitable, respectively) that usually gets skipped. Using that can make the modules longer if you need to fill a longer slot.

Shadow Lodge

You used to run the risk of bashing your head on the dungeon ceiling, because your jump height was 1/4 the jump distance. I don't see that explicitly stated anymore, but the DCs for high jumps are still the same (i.e. the DC to high jump 5ft is the same to long jump 20ft).

Shadow Lodge

Corragh Bearson wrote:
Since the Brawler Rage power effect is to bump unarmed damage by one step when raging, it should have the same effect on a Brawler/Barbarian who happens to have started up higher up the chain. Right?

No. The power does exactly what it says it does, give you IUS or 1d6 damage if you already have IUS. It doesn't say anything about increasing the damage you normally deal, if higher.

Shadow Lodge

What makes you think that you would? The only time you lose Dex to AC is when the rules say you do.

Shadow Lodge ***

ToshiroKurita wrote:
where do we draw the line?

That you are not happy with it's location, does not mean the line hasn't been drawn. Apparently it's somewhere between using this ability, death knell, and the like, and somewhere before drinking blood for power, eating souls for power, skinning people alive for power, etc.

Shadow Lodge ***

Artoo wrote:

Let's reverse the roles for what you're saying there:

It makes me feel like I'm failing at my "job" as a player if I don't know the rules my GMs are using. There are too many rules for one person to know them all, but if I don't know them who will? Several people have said "the GMs", and that's great. But the GMs don't always know the rules for their own monsters, much less the characters I'm playing.
Does that still seem reasonable? If not, why not? What do we mean by knowing the rules in this context? Is everyone okay with knowing those rules after the game is over? Are you saying it's an "argument to the extreme" to say that this sort of reversal should be reasonable?

Nope. All the player is ever expected to be responsible for is their own character. If you play a Gunslinger, no one expects you to know that Smite Evil bypasses damage reduction. If you play a paladin, no one expects you to know that you can Reflex save for half of an alchemist's splash damage. As a GM, there is pressure to know these rules, both to help newer players with their characters, and to be more competent at running the game in general. So, no. Your reversal of my statement is not reasonable.

There are plenty of players who know the rules. There are players who know the rules better than their GMs. In the end, I don't care who knows the rule, as long as they share that knowledge when appropriate. Just because I feel the pressure to know the rules at least as well as my players, doesn't mean I'm doing things the right way or the wrong way. It's just how I feel.

Shadow Lodge ***

And those aren't the same thing because...?

Shadow Lodge ***

Don't really see the issue. Just needs clarification that the 4d6 is added to the overall damage and doesn't get multiplied on a crit. What's another 14 damage on a dedicated charger?

Shadow Lodge ***

Evolutionist, First World, Naturalist, Shaitan Binder, and Story Summoner all appear to be legal.

Shadow Lodge ***

That thread makes me a sad panda.

Shadow Lodge ***

Artoo wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:
Speaking as a GM, it makes me uncomfortable when I don't know the rules my player is using.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

Maybe. I meant exactly what I said. Let me try it another way...

It makes me feel like I'm failing at my "job" as a GM if I don't know the rules my players are using. There are too many rules for one person to know them all, but if I don't know them who will? Several people have said "the players", and that's great. But the players don't always know the rules for their own characters, much less the monsters I'm running.

In the grand scheme, I would rather have a player with the Bestiary open correcting my mistakes, than to have a mistake go unnoticed and I never learn to be better. That's a bit of an "argument to the extreme" though. I hope you realize that.

Artoo wrote:
So whenever something happens when you're GMing you have no problem telling the players everything behind what happened?

Not sure I understand the question. I won't spoil the scenario in the middle of the session, but I sometimes go back and tell the players about bits they may not have experienced, and monsters they didn't identify.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person 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 ***

That's fine, Jiggy. I expect, I even ask, that my players will call me out if I'm using a rule incorrectly and they know better. So, problem solved, at least on my end.

Shadow Lodge ***

Okay, sure. If you have 16 characters across 14 levels and wanted to play each level with a different, PFS legal, character you could.

You could also play a PFS legal pregen for some of the levels and apply credit to a new 1st level PC. The highest level legal pregens are level 7, so you wouldn't be able to play the highest levels unless you had a "real" character, which isn't as likely if you're assigning credit to 16 different characters.

But yeah, I suppose someone, somewhere, might want to do that.

Or maybe, just maybe, I was making a reference to the fact that the Spire can't be played in AP mode, and you have to assign credit to the legal character that you play in each level. This thread was started by someone who still believes there are no high level play options, what, three seasons after that change? Forgive me for not taking your rules knowledge for granted.

Shadow Lodge ***

Paz is correct. They were very specific when it came out that it, like Dawn of the Scarlet Sun, was not replayable.

Shadow Lodge ***

Not quite what I'm saying. A paladin of Abadar is going to need evidence that the officials are corrupt before he can, in good faith, ignore their authority. I agree with very little in the OP, but I agree that paladins who flaunt the law without taking the time to make sure violating it meshes with their code should suffer the consequences.

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

Grand Magus wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
stuff stuff ...
You've been a good Robot today.

With that attitude, you're lucky anyone engages you in conversation. If you're not open to differing opinions, how do you ever learn?

Shadow Lodge ***

Nefreet wrote:

You needn't apply all the Chronicles from an AP to the same character.

In the case of Emerald Spire, which has 16 different Chronicle Sheets (17, technically), you could apply one to each of 16 different characters.

Yeah, I suppose, if you had a different character in each level band. Why would you want to play each level with a different character?

Shadow Lodge ***

David Bowles wrote:
But they aren't law breakers of any law the paladin would care about in the first place. That's my point. Any paladin should look askance at the outlawing of any good deity.

Who are you to decide what laws my paladin cares about? I think it depends on the padadin. A paladin of Sarenrae clearly sees the "big picture" but a paladin of Abadar would be a little more hard pressed to just flaunt the lawful authority of that town.

Shadow Lodge ***

Some players attack anything. There seems to be a pervasive mentality of "If it's in the scenario, it must be level appropriate." Thankfully, it's usually the murderhobos that pay the stupid tax in those situations.

Shadow Lodge

Tarantula wrote:
Yes, there are ways to mitigate those penalties, but my point is that Disarming the action provokes (without a feat), and disarming unarmed provides a penalty (without a feat IUS). So at the point of 2 (really 3 feats in due to prereqs) they still are wanting to tag on an AoO which does not have a way to avoid it. Its overly penalizing for no reason, and doesn't match with previous versions of disarm.

It does sound overly penalizing. Maybe they should have thought of that before they changed the wording. Maybe they did think of that.

As you pointed out in the OP, the disarm rules allow you to pick up the weapon. Unless you can point out a rule saying this action doesn't provoke, it seem it provokes as normal.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Do any weapons have the "Sunder" weapon property, which gives +2 to CMB to Sunder checks using the weapon?

The Sai has the property "+2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to sunder an enemy's weapon." which sounds like the same thing, but it doesn't have the Sunder property. Should the Sai have the Sunder property?

Shadow Lodge ***

Killed my wife's Ranger in My Enemy's Enemy. Quick aside to the local temple and 16 Prestige later and she got better.

My Lore Warden in her running of Quest for Perfection part 1 did not get better. :'(

Shadow Lodge ***

How are you getting a second animal companion? Or are you talking about a normal eagle?

Classes with animal companions add their levels together when determining the strength of the animal companion, they don't get separate companions.

Shadow Lodge ***

Ah, so he's saying it should give a free one? Again. It would be interesting, but they're not likely to revise the boon.

Shadow Lodge ***

Unless I'm reading the archetype wrong, your next 5 prestige breakpoint is 9th level when you get madcap prank. That gives you all of 6th, 7th, and 8th levels (potentially 18 Prestige) and whatever remains unplayed of 5th level to save up the prestige you need. How short are you?

Edit: And if you go with Fox's suggestion and dip a level of Oracle, that's another "free" level (6 prestige) before you hit your next archetype feature.

Shadow Lodge ***

It would be interesting, but it's not what the boon gives and they're not likely to revise it so many years later.

Shadow Lodge ***

For what it's worth, Codanous, I agree with you on those Perception DCs. Generally, though, when my players say they're doing something quietly (like spellcasting) on the other side of a door, I have them roll stealth, and use the result instead of the listed DCs.

Shadow Lodge ***

Miryafa wrote:
And since the word RAW is in the title of this thread, I'm asking that people stop posting things off-topic, such as the argument that's starting up, or how they think a DM would rule it.

If your question is about RAW, then it belongs in the rules forum. If it's about how it will be handled in PFS, then you need to accept that different table GMs handle "corner case" stuff like this differently.

Unless you're trying to get a ruling from the head GM, Mike Brock. And I promise you you won't like his answer.

As for our posts being "off-topic" your question was answered in the second post. This thread isn't your personal property, we can talk about what we want in it. Welcome to the internet.

Shadow Lodge ***

Tsriel wrote:

This is one of the fallout issues I'm loathe to see whenever a decision is made to ban something. Particularly so when the source in question requires abit of a buildup to obtain. Through gritted teeth I say that you're stuck until you can manage to retrain.

Sometimes the free retrain guidelines don't do enough. It's not unheard of for people to just stop playing affected characters altogether. Its a sad fact we all must contend with.

Except that a Street Performer bard is still viable in PFS even without Pageant of the Peacock. I have a hard time seeing how giving up Inspire Courage has anything to do the PotP. I could see regretting not having Knowledges or Bardic Knowledge, but even then the character is still viable.

There are many reasons people stop playing characters. Sometimes those reasons are immature. We shouldn't enable that. (Note that I'm not talking about evilaustintom. He has given me no reason to think that he's asking this for "bad" reasons. I've already made a helpful post, so I'm entitled to gripe a bit.)

Shadow Lodge ***

Muser wrote:
GM's should allow players to use the ample cover the map topography obviously grants(stands, tent rows, etc). It's usually a massacre or an exercise in creative dice fumbling otherwise.

The enemy position is above most of the cover, and the flimsy material means I treat it like concealment (miss chance) rather than cover (AC bonus).
Shadow Lodge ***

If you don't currently have the Prestige to retrain, you can GM for a while to stock up on GM credit. It means not getting to play the character, but you could always go slow track after the retraining I guess.

I have a Paladin/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple that I never really liked the "feel" of, so I'm saving GM credit to retrain into a Bloodrager.

Shadow Lodge ***

Mike Bramnik wrote:
Short run-time + 0 risk of death = great quick demo/intro.

Did I miss something? Dying in a quest "doesn't count?"

Shadow Lodge ***

The problem with the SWAT Team analogy is they aren't readying actions. At best, they're delaying until after the guy who opens the door. At worst, opening the door happens in the surprise round, and none of them enter initiative until the door is opened. If someone on the other side of the door heard them getting ready to bust it down, they could ready an action to shoot when the door was opened. Their action would go off after the door opened, but before the rest of the Team could act.

I start tracking initiative when one side becomes aware of the other. That includes the bad guys becoming aware of the murder hobos outside the door arguing over whether to cast fireball or just let the barbarian rush in.

Shadow Lodge ***

Giving an animal companion to a class that doesn't normally get one would be broken beyond belief.

Or are you saying to give the Bestiary axebeak to those that don't have a companion/mount class ability? That would be odd, since the Bestiary axebeak and the axebeak animal companion have different stats.

Shadow Lodge ***

Lou Diamond wrote:

The black blades purpose does not matter in PFS. Over a blade bound Magus's career he will have over 24 game masters that's asking 24 different game masters to try to force a player live with in a purpose that is not Defined within the rules set.

If black blades were really run with the same rules that intelligent magic
weapons then maybe you could in force the rules for a black bales purpose in PFS. Black blades are a very good concept that was not implemented well in the rules.

Something not working well in PFS is not a good yardstick to say it doesn't work well period. This sort of thing can be amazingly fun in a home game where the GM can work with the player to make a fun an engaging story that is consistent for the whole campaign.

Shadow Lodge

Lou Diamond wrote:
Hi Mark, I am playing a bloodrager with the celestial blood line who is an Angel blooded Aasamir. My question is why don't the celestial resistences from race and blood line stack?

Because, as with almost every typed thing in Pathfinder, energy resistance doesn't stack.

Mark, what is your favorite movie? (Apologies if I missed this answer somewhere.)

1 to 50 of 1,075 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.