|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
This thread wasn't meant for speculation,
And yet, here we are. Speculating.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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).
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.
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.
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.
Lou Diamond wrote:
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.
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.)