Rogue Eidolon's page

Kinda the GM's fault. 4 man party with 2 brand new players using pre gens. GM failed to "guide" the brand new players IMHO. i.e. GM: "Well new player, being that you are looking at the BBEG on the roof in front of you you should consider using potion of fly, rather then sit there with a dumbfounded look on your face." Just seems like if the GM was alot more involved with helping the BRAND NEW players, they invited to the table, to use pregens that made the party have a fighter(noob), rouge(noob), barbarian 9 (me), and caster 9ish (other guy that knew what he was doing. At the very least the pregens should have rounded out the party with a cleric or something. I'm just very disappointed with the way the scenario was judged is all. I'll get over it soon enough. I realize everyone makes mistakes. Just sucks the scenario had a decent boon.

The first mistake was that two pregen level 7s were being played in a 5-9 or 7-11 by completely first-time RPG players at all.

Also, if this is the shadow mastiff I bet it is, then the before combat tactics say it was waiting to be fed. So eating is even more reasonable, based on the listed tactics.

(I understand totally why the REDACTED finalized the REDACTED character - however there is no point to play a healer if everyone you heal or try to heal is especially targeted - I alsost stopped playing the 8th Merciful Healer after that experience)

Intelligent NPCs are trying to win. If you're going to yo-yo all the unconscious characters back to consciousness and they're going to rejoin the fight, those intelligent NPCs can clearly see that they can't possibly win. You might say "well, it's not like I'm not expending my channels and spells on this, so it's not coming for free". And in terms of the next fight, that might be true. But for the NPCs, whose lives are on the line right now and who don't care if your healer has fewer channels next fight, that's what they see--they can't ever win without dropping the whole team, and if each dropped character comes back through healing and keeps on fighting them, then that can't possibly be achieved.

There's two solutions for the intelligent NPC:

Solution 1: Kill the healer(s) dead. Now you don't have to worry about that whole "back into the fight" thing and can instead continue to knock out active opponents and ignore unconscious ones.

Solution 2: Finish off the unconscious PCs so they can't be healed, hopefully using as few resources as possible to do so (perhaps final iterative attacks that aren't likely to hit an active PC but are very likely to hit a 0 Dex unconscious PC).

There's really no way around this conclusion for an enemy with even remotely approaching human intelligence.

As an aside, I dislike this conclusion, so in home games I've instituted a rule that causes the trauma of being knocked out by damage to prevent you from awakening instantly upon being healed. My players love this rule, as it means that there is no longer an NPC incentive to kill unconscious characters.

Of course, this can't be used in PFS. At the least, you're using up enemy resources in most cases to obtain those kills. And if Solution 2 is getting you down, then worry not! Just make sure your healer has breath of life, and you'll probably be able to get them to switch over from Solution 2 to Solution 1.

I have a feeling that their comments were mostly based on "Day of the Demon", which was being run by them at this con (acknowledged that it’s a “special”). I know both gentlemen fairly well, and I don’t have any reason to believe that they were divulging NDA information, or making things up otherwise.

DotD is not as bad as they say. I had a table of 4 basically level 7 pregens run through it (the cleric wasn't a pregen but was lower level and was thus worse than level 7 pregen kyra in pretty much all ways, everyone else was a pregen) and curbstomp it (and trust me, I don't have a reputation as being a super-easy GM). They had not great dice rolls and pregen characters, and they didn't even come close to dying in any of the fights, though admittedly the players used moderately good tactics (nothing stellar). So I wouldn't worry about needing two out of three of those for Season 5 based off DotD.

Now, granted, I do agree that some of the other Season 4 adventures can be pretty hard, just not DotD (unless your PCs are less prepared for basic challenges of low-mid-level adventuring than the pregens are).

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

Dennis--it depends on the scenario and the situation, really.

No, not really.

Assuming you have two reasonably competent players, a level 5 character is always going to contribute vastly more to combat than a level 1 character. Sure it's an improvement over no character at all... but that's not the point. The 1st level character isn't contributing equally, or even close.

Yes, the 1st level character might get swept up in an area effect spell, one shotted by a bad-guy, or killed by a trap. Which sort of illustrates the silliness of building rules that encourages that kind of play by creating hugely outsized rewards for doing so.

Of course a level 5 haracter is going to contribute more than a level 1 character. But assuming that you have a party that can handle the scenario at high subtier already and then add characters at the absolute bottom of the tier, it's the new characters who are in the most danger, not the others.

Let's take an example--

Say you have 4 level 6 characters who can clearly win the 6-7 of a 3-7 scenario. And the APL is 6, so that's all they can play. Suddenly, a level 3 arrives, and the wealth is using the podcast proposal system. This party is undeniably stronger than the 4 level 6s without the new friend. Now the APL is 5.4, which rounds to 5 and is in between tiers.

The 4 level 6s say "Hey new guy, we were about to play the 6-7 with our APL 6 party. Let's go."

The new guy says "Absolutely not! I'm likely to be one-shotted or swept up in an AoE or killed by a trap and there's no way to cover that expense. We're playing in 3-4, and that's final. GM, they can't bully me into playing up right?"

And the GM says "The lower level isn't in favor of playing up, so we play down."

And this group, which is strictly stronger than the group that was ready to easily win their 6-7, plays down to 3-4 instead and curbstomps it. The high levels all get half gold and are now less equipped for future adventures.

@Dennis. Yeah, you're right that I may be wrong on the empirical question of whether it's a serious WBL penalty to have a lower-level play up. That's my general impression, but I could be wrong.

More to the point, I think, is the fact that under PCP, it's a serious and permanent WBL penalty to have higher-levels play...

Another way to relieve that is to go with GPBL. Some people have suggested that this will lead to cakewalking, even deliberate cakewalking. Perhaps that's true. But (i) what a boring way to play! I'd never do it! and (ii) you're not going to get a perfect system anyway, and this objection looks more like an I don't like that way of playing objection than a serious mechanical problem.

I mean, sure, I don't like that way of playing either. But it doesn't cause problems for anyone, as I see it. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm still new to PF and PFS

Hey Joe--true, it doesn't cause problems for the person playing down, if a cakewalk is what they enjoy, but it might cause problems for the on-tier characters if they don't want one. In the one example of tier bullying I've ever seen where someone actually walked away (me) to avoid a cakewalk (which was still a cakewalk even with the empty seat), I wasn't even locked into a high level character (I had a level 2 to play as well, who I played at the other table I found). So sometimes the players playing on-tier don't want the high level carry dominating and turning it into a cakewalk (for the same reason that they don't want to see a double wealth by level monster doing the same).

This entire thread is further evidence that the PFS, and Pathfinder in general, truly listen to their players/GMs.

We should all take a step back and employ a little gratitude that our voices are being heard -- that we're being considered.

*ding ding*

Ok, Round 15. Come out with your gloves up. A clean fight, please.

I hope we won't have a clean fight, or any fight at all in this thread if we can help it. I truly hope that we can keep this as a respectful thread where we try to leverage the Paizo and PFS community's awesome brain trust to find a solution that will work and make people happy.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Would it really be that bad if the level 5 playing down got level 5 loot?

Giving a level 5 character playing down in a subtier 1-2 scenario the tier 4-5 rewards is a HORRIBLE idea. We will have the opposite problem where all higher level characters will want to play down, dominating their scenarios and not leaving a challenge for the characters in the appropriate subtier.

This would also be a problem with "fixed" payscales. Players in the higher subtier would always want to play down. (Ok, not always, as some players will like the challenge, but...) They get "paid" the same but less risk playing down.

Agreed that it can cause issues (but let's not call it "horrible")--

Known Premise: Characters who play up all the time get too much wealth.

Corollary: Characters who played down all the time would get too little wealth, but it doesn't happen as often.

Personal Opinion: Wealth aside, victorious games with playing up are way more fun than cakewalks playing down.

Fact: Some players are risk-averse and currently like playing down even with the current system.

Conclusion: Since the gold-always-on-tier system gives them more rewards for the same action, these same people will be even more likely to play down, thus leading to more cakewalk play downs.

Cold Napalm wrote:

Why the interest punishing ANYONE? Why do you have to punish anyone to play up? They are taking more risk. They use up more consumable. So why do you want them to end up being CRIPPLED at higher levels for taking more risks?

Are they really taking more risks?

I don't see it that way. They are playing half the number of scenarios to get to that point. They are playing at tables with other more powerful characters at every juncture and those more powerful characters are almost certainly contributing more and likely taking the brunt of the enemies attacks as a result.

The people playing *at tier* are pulling the low tier guy along. They are taking on more risk by having a low-tier guy who doesn't contribute as much and they get no extra reward for doing it. Why should the low-tier guy who is causing the problem be able to short-cut the system and collect the same rewards as the guys who are pulling him along?

The whole point of the change is to encourage people to play *AT* tier. Your suggestion doesn't put any incentive on playing at tier. In fact many people would prefer to shortcut certain levels and would seek out playing up to do so. Lets align the rewards in the system in such a way that rewards playing the appropriate level.

So in a hypothetical world, it would be great if every game was always played with all characters exactly in tier. But the proposed system makes playing up so bad of a decision for low tier characters, that only the true thrill-seekers would do so without being extremely unhappy, so in the non-ideal situation when you don't have a full match, the lone lowbie will probably go home instead of playing, possibly stopping a legal table from happening.

If this is desired behavior, then why not just make it so that a level 1-2 is simply banned from playing a subtier 4-5 and so on? That's de facto what will happen in all but corner cases anyway (I'm personally a corner case who would play up for excitement alone, but I know most others wouldn't).

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

First, we have to make a convincing case for why the double XP idea is a solid way to prevent the too-much-gold characters from existing without making playing up a 100% nonstarter possibility for all but the risktakers.

One way to do that is to propose something which appears to have actual drawbacks over playing in an appropriate level game. If the proposal simply allows power-gamers to get to 12 in 21 games, rather than 33, without any drawbacks, that gives you less negotiating power.

You may want to clearly state the goals you are hoping to accomplish with this proposal. Having them clearly framed will help folks ensure they are all on the same page -- including Mike, John, and Mark.

I'd think the following would apply, but you may have others:

• Create an avenue for ending level disparity within regular (isolated) gaming groups.
• Not create a new method for players to "game the system".
• Avoid allowing characters to accumulate far more wealth than normal.

This method has plenty of drawbacks, but you have to be looking at things from a gold per XP standpoint (the same standpoint that allows us to see that the current system is allowing for overpowered-for-their-level characters). And really, that's how we have to look at it--this is the reason that the current greatest way to twink your character is to intentionally fail lots of scenarios just before halfway, never gaining XP but still getting gold and a little bit of prestige. It's why I heard about Living Greyhawk characters who killed themselves on purpose (since raise dead made you lose levels in those days) so they could keep on playing with more wealth.

The 2 XP proposal, in fact, gives roughly the same amount of money per XP as the method proposed by MJM (as shown by Mergy). It does not allow accumulation of far more wealth than normal. It can't "gamed" really in any way. Heck, this hypothetical "power leveler" had better live in an area with dozens and dozens of other players because this requires playing with a different group entirely every few games or so (once you catch up, you can no longer play up). And in reality, you can already power level easily with Thornkeep more efficiently and with far less risk than you get from this proposal--remember, spamming the 2 XP proposal yields characters who have the same gold at any given level as characters who always got the low tier money (like MJM's proposal), so it's not like you're getting more and more powerful for your level. You're just leveling faster, and with greater risk. In fact, if you have more than double the chance of dying when playing up or spend more than twice the consumables (a very reasonable possibility), you still wind up worse for money than if you had played on tier, just not as much worse as with MJM's proposal.

pauljathome wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

Can we please have Auntie Baltwin back for the replacement? She's SO much fun to GM.

I absolutely LOATHE that portion of the scensrio.

** spoiler omitted **

Dude, that's how we play it around here.

** spoiler omitted **

I've run First Steps a lot of times and

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

Relmer wrote:

Joe M. wrote:

What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.

So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.

Doubling everything may seem like it's feeding greed, but actually that's only an illusion. The main problem is the characters with too much gold for their level, like twice as much by playing up. By doubling everything else too, you are actually bringing the character to ordinary WBL from before. It's exactly the same WBL as the current proposed plan, but since it gets it to it through a different method, it mitigates the problem of needing more consumables and raises when playing up.

Everyone, we need to respectfully address Relmer's concern here in order to proceed. Mike's watching, and he favorited the post to which I'm responding.

I see adding "variable XP" to the mix as an unnecessary complication to a system that is already, in some ways, bogged down by too many additional rules and choices ("Hey new player, you know how you had a hard time picking feats? Now you have to pick traits too!").

We already have two experience tracks. Adding the possibility to get more XP by playing a session "at the right tier" is just another way to "game the system"; you have changed "wealth cheating" to "fast leveling cheating."

To play in PFS you already need to play Pathfinder with an additional "layer" of complication added on top. The solution to the WBL problem should not make that worse. The solution should be simple and easy to follow at minimum (i.e. a single sentence). Ideally, the solution will also solve other problems like setting up players at tables and encouraging people to play the sessions they want by removing mechanical advantages to character advancement.

The difference between "wealth cheating" and "fast leveling cheating" is that "wealth cheating" actually makes your character overpowered for your own subtier, whereas "fast leveling cheating" does not (Netopalis put it elegantly with his timeline analogy). Heck, you want "fast leveling cheating"? Play Thornkeep. 3 XP per floor and some of the floors aren't even longer than a scenario.

zylphryx wrote:

Todd Morgan wrote:

Here's my thought process for why I think the new change as proposed would work well:

1) I think scenarios are going to get harder. Season 4 showed me that groups playing up often lose one or two characters each session. In fact, I believe the number one reason for TPKs in Season 4 (if not in general) is due to playing up. By disincentivizing people from playing up, you prevent unnecessary player deaths that slow down the end of the game.

2) You prevent the overshadowing of other players at the table because everyone will have wealth similar to their expected level.

It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character

Except that I know folks who refuse to play pregens. The pregens are, pretty much, not equipped well, are less than ideal builds (and I'm not even talking min/max here) and there is no player investment with the pregen.

And if the pregen dies, so does the lower level PCs they would be applying the credit to.

So the choices with the upcoming change is:
1) Higher level PCs play down (if possible) and takes a GP hit
2) Player with lower level PC plays a pregen that they have no investment in
3) Player with lower level PC walks away from the table (which could result in no table being run)

Not really an ideal set of choices.

It's been clarified that death with a pregen just means the death of your next unused slot - for example, I have 4 characters. If I were playing a pregen now and died, it would kill off slot number 5.

Otherwise, I generally agree with you. Pregens are sub-optimal, and rather silly. I wouldn't be happy playing at a 7-11 with a pregen, and I don't think anybody else would be either. You've earned the right to play at that high level table, and having to do it with a character that's not your own, that doesn't have the personality that you so enjoy playing, is rather pointless.

Side note--7-11 is actually the exception; if you have a table forced to 10-11 and a player with a level 7 character under the proposed change, this is the only time that a level-appropriate pregen isn't even an option. That player either plays up with huge risk and the lower reward or leaves, no other choice unless you force everyone else at the whole table to play a level 7 pregen.

@Relmer:

The variable XP option need not be complicated. When you play up, you get to pick your reward: either (i) "at-tier" for your character or (ii) doubled (2 xp, higher-tier gold, boosted PP).

I'm wary of the solution you propose ("Regardless of the tier you play your character gets the gold for their appropriate tier") for reasons hashed out upthread: difficulty forming tables, lower-level characters not willing to take on that risk, spend the extra gp in consumables etc. It just puts a lot of friction on the process of forming tables and picking tier.

The at-tier-or-double solution avoids that problem and still addresses the WBL concerns that got this whole thing started

Relmer's solution actually doesn't lead to as much friction as the current plan because he is proposing that high level characters who play down still get high tier gold. However, it does lead to cakewalks with a high level carry, which MJM also specifically wanted to avoid.

I still maintain that the XP solution is simple, practical, effective, and actually solves additional issues while it's at it.

Mahtobedis wrote:

I think the 2xp is brilliant. It rewards you for risking your neck. It allows you to catch up with your buddies. And it seems to preserve the WLB curve.

Helping you catch up with other players is actually pretty big to me. It would be nice to feel like I don't have to wait on others to catch up, or worse like I can't catch up with my friends.

Catching up has been a terrible issue for our small (1 table) home group with respect to Eyes of the Ten. I've managed to wrangle the players and keep everyone within 3 XP of each other, but those last 3 XP are going to be horrible for the player who's behind (probably playing with a table full of 7 pregens despite being 11). This 2 XP idea solves that problem too, even though I hadn't even mentioned it yet.

Well, thanks Rogue Eidolon.

I´m not totally sure about it. But besides being greedy that´s the only reason i can see there for playing up or down.

Even in a setting like MrSin decribed, things could be evened out faster then and people can have more fun together and with their characters.
Perhaps gold would still need to be adjusted in one or the other way so you actually stick to the expected curve.

But that's the beauty of it--in most tiers, the low tier gets about half the high tier gold. So your gold per experience point stays constant. It's elegant, powerful, and without (as far as I can tell) any serious drawbacks. And it's all based in the math that the original game works on anyway (pairing XP and gold rewards).

OK Hayato Ken--are you ready for why you are a (maybe unintentional) GENIUS? My girlfriend (And co-liaison) just came up with this, and it makes me lobby heavily for your idea--

So take the version of Hayato Ken's proposal where you get 2 XP every time you play up, and the high tier gold. First off, this stops you from getting too much gold for your level. But second, think about why you're playing up all the time in the first place. So why? Probably because you joined your group a bit late and you're perennially one or two levels behind everybody else. With Hayato Ken's idea, you catch up. And then you never have to play up again. All while keeping WBL and not causing a serious problem with consumable cost and raise dead. This is brilliant.

Maybe for playing down you get an automatic 1/2 xp or 1/4 xp while you get the full gold or at least such that when you gain another level, you are on curve with gold and PP?

That could also help even character levels and after some scenarios lower level PC will have catched up without gimping or penalizing the ones who play down too much.

That's...actually fascinating. And you could give 2 XP for playing up. Hmmmmmmm...wealthwise that could really work. I'll have to mull on it.

The proposed system will put a strain on event organizers in terms of mustering to balance tables.

Suppose the following NOT hypothetical example from a recent convention (Patrick, you know what I'm talking about). There is a table going off at Tier 3-7. One GM and six players are present. Two players are level 6, two players are level 7, and two players are level 3. This creates an APL 5 table.

With the new system, one of the following would occur:
1) The two level 3 players would have to play up, and experience an enormous amount of risk and greater consumable expenditure with no reward.
2) The four level 6 or 7 players would have to play down, and be punished in terms of wealth earned.
3) The two level 3 players would have to play pregens, and not get to play their characters.
4) The four level 6 or 7 players would have to play different characters (which was not an option for several players at the table), and would not get to play the character they wanted.

At least previously, the level 3s would be rewarded for surviving a much greater challenge (even if they needed some help). This new rule punishes players for an unavoidable circumstance: new and old players without a lot of available characters playing together.

As such, I am against this new system. In fact, I am personally against capping WBL in general. I would be interested in seeing how many players have actually managed gaming the system and getting to always play up (did they find a group that will always tolerate having a lower-level character along?).

Why not instead simply find a way to disincentivize seating players of mixed levels together that does not involve punishing someone? Perhaps loosen the pregen rules in some way? Or allow playing an "older" version of a character and getting to obtain the high-tier wealth if you're forced to play down?

This is a great example. And if one of those level 3s was a level 4 instead, then you don't even have all those options even. You can't play 3-4.

Premise: As a store liaison, I've coordinated a good number of games. I've seen mostly playing on-tier but also a good amount of playing up. The current proposal would be quite harmful in mustering tables because I believe this is going to cause all but the most major thrillseekers to absolutely refuse to play up, even if they're the odd one out and the table will be high tier with or without them (like a level 5 sitting at a table with all level 9s). I expect we'll have people just have to walk out, and it will make it more difficult on liaisons to muster tables

Why?: Basically the extra wealth is a cushion for deaths and loss of consumables, which definitely do happen. The same reason, in part, that we rarely see slow progression.

But the idea of curbing the super-wealth characters is a good one.

Alternate Ideas:

1) Only after paying for raises and replaced consumables do you get capped at the lower tier when playing up. So for instance, let's say you are a level 3 playing in a 6-7 and you get 3000 instead of 1000 gold. You can start with 3000, pay for a raise or replaced consumables first, and then you are reduced to 1000 or however much is left, whatever is lower.

2) Wealth by level cap based on the chart in the CRB--this will stop playing up from getting you too high without penalizing people who die or lose lots of consumables from playing up when necessary (since sometimes it's the high tier, a pregen, or the highway).

More ideas as I think of them.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

• Change in wealth earned in scenarios

!

Up? Down? Same but just handled differently?

And are you trying to give me gray hairs by dropping bombs like that without giving the details yet? ;)

I am guessing (but really really hoping I'm wrong) that it's going to be that level 1-2 characters playing in 4-5 are going to get the level 1-2 wealth (and so on for all tiers).

*Crosses fingers that I'm wrong.*

I hope you're wrong too. I was planning to constantly play Ksenia 'up' when I can, just to see how long she'd last.

Though I can see the other way being abused (if you get tier level treasure based on your level instead of what tier you play at.)

"Hey new first level party! I'll bring my 5th level character, and make it a cake walk for you, everyone wins!"

Agreed, though I imagine it would just go the other direction. The main problem I see is that it will make singleton low level characters very very uncomfortable with playing up (when the table has to play the high tier, no choice) because they have all the increased likelihood of death but no extra cash to pay for the raise or for more expendables. So in many cases, I imagine that they will walk away from the table and not play until they can find a 1-2, particularly if the character is very dear to them. It's essentially similar to the problem with slow progression. I know a lot of people who have considered slow progression but can't deal with the fact that in slow progression, consumables and raises cost twice as much as in normal.

But no need to analyze it when it isn't even a guarantee. It's just I've been particularly worrying about this possibility since even before I saw Mike's post, so now I can't think of anything else in the "wealth earned in scenarios" category of changes.

Mathew Morris wrote:

I read it as the two spells are negating each other in the overlap, so the mundane light source works.

Thats probably the intent but the raw only remembered to to have daylight negate the lowered light level of the deeper darkness, not its ability to shut off the light.

Heightened dancing lights ftw!

This is also a viable judge interpretation. It depends on that devilish prevailing clause. I try to be nicer to the PCs if possible and allow the mundane light sources to function, but the way you run it is also backed by the rules depending on prevailing.

I agree with both points... You don't want all of the PCs to be Minkanite expats.

But a key point here is, in character the N/PCs do not know they are heading towards Minkai until the end of the first book or Brinewall is completed. The road from Riddleport to Brinewall and the continuation to the crossroad to Jol is not well trodden.

The logic of a Masato hitching a ride to Brinewall and then Minkai is a bit obtuse. A ship to Kalsgard from Sandpoint or Magnimar would make more sense. Of course, if the logic is to help Ameiko or something, it may work...

The other thing I would recommend is have the PCs pick varying NPCs to be buddies with, my pbp is an Ameiko love fest and one guy wants to date her so the rest barely rp... I really like the AP, I am running it on the boards and in RL and have used it to teach with... so its baller...

BTW, The Baleful Coven was an awesome plugin and my players really loved it...

And my group has a sylph sky druid who I convinced should have a wizard father named Tornaq, so I'll probably get good use out of Under Frozen Stars, which I hear is also great. And going on the record that I really love the work of everyone from Legendary Games, both their Paizo work and their LG work (I've never seen anything of less than top quality by Jason or Neil), I'm with you on this one particular point Insnare. It might work for other groups, but someone like Masato or, say, pregen Hayato joining the caravan before Brinewall (when the caravan had no plans to go to Minkai yet) makes no sense to me (though I think the idea for the twins is awesome, Neil!), and the first thing I did when I started my JR group last month was to make sure everyone in my group was on the same page, and they agreed with me on this, so I guess it varies based on your group. I managed to get mostly characters with huge hooks to the campaign while being Westerners (like Tornaq's daughter above), even the one guy deadset on playing a ninja (he wound up being Tsutamu's grandson, raised in Magnimar), and for that I'm grateful to my players for working with me.

Just to jump in here real quick, for those who think it would require a "ranged touch attack", you just allowed the spell to Critial Hit on a 20.

So now, my ranged Cure Serious Wounds can crit an ally healing double?

Obviously Cure * Wounds can not normally crit on a touch (so it's not a auto 20 hit touch attack on friends), so why would it change for Reach?

If you chose not to take the automatic hit but instead roll it out, why couldn't you crit with a cure light wounds? You can certainly crit with inflict light wounds (and if the enemy, unknown to you, is a dhampir, that crit will heal him).

This is my interpretation of the rules and it is how I run things at my tables. If I am proved to be wrong, I will change how I run them of course.

Yes I would let you auto-hit with a spell like ray of frost or acid splash on an ally that is healed by it.

OK, I think I see where you're coming from, even if I don't agree it's RAW. You're giving me a better perspective of where the other side is coming from, thanks! :)

Just two follow ups--this is even if the ally is super small size, has improved cover on the other side of an arrow slit (+8 cover bonus to AC) and has concealment, right? (if there's no attack roll, then the AC changers like cover wouldn't matter one way or the other).

No, I would never allow you to auto-hit a willing ally with a ranged, non-touch attack.

Why not if you can with a ranged non-touch? Let's say it's on a character whose touch AC is equal to my regular AC--say a monk?

Most players are pretty good at brining wands along.

Almost every session is a bit of a horse trade where wands are passed to the various people who can use them by people who can't, and its nice to see people investing the 2pp into a wand to help out and do their part.

Where I found this whole IH argument as being strange was that:

Players are objecting to IH on behalf of their unconscious Paladin who cannot speak.

It's not without precedent in PFS. Your unconscious character also gets a say in whether the wizard throws a fireball that hits and kills you but also wins the encounter.

Players are suggesting that their unconscious Paladin would know all about IH, even lacking Spellcraft or Know:Arcane - which is pretty Meta, and despite so many Paladins with dump stat mental abilities. Different story if they HAD those skills - assuming they were alert and not 'sleeping'.

The paladin might have seen IH in a past adventure. The paladin might have good Sense Motive. Another party member that didn't use the wand might tell the paladin if the paladin asked them honestly what happened to make them feel evil.

People are suggesting that IH could 'cause the Paladin to fall', which appears to be solidly grounded in the impartiality of personal bias.

Agreed. If it's against your wishes and without your consent, you wouldn't fall. Using the spell on purpose, violates the dogma of Iomedae flagrantly and Sarenrae as well. Even so, having it cast on your unconscious body isn't going to make you fall. You still could RP wanting an atonement though. In my games, I will make a note of it if your character is a cleric of Iomedae or Sarenrae (or any other class that loses its powers for violating the deity's dogma) and you are doing something egregious like buying one of these wands yourself and using it while proselytizing how much more cash efficient it is than CLW.

Now, that's only what I would mark on your sheet for--really a good cleric or paladin of almost any good deity (and many other good-aligned characters) wouldn't be allowing this spell to be used on them except in dire circumstances, depending on their personality and value system. In the world of Golarion, there's things a lot worse than death, and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Asmodeus knows this--it's why he offers up such a useful spell: to tempt mortals into using it.

People feel that it is a dick move to IH the Paladin, but that the Paladin to lay about on the floor 'sleeping on the job' is legit.

(Would it be a dick move to let the Paladin kick the bucket, then animate dead his corpse to make a Zombie with? Hey at least he's up and back in the front line now)

Yes the past part was tongue in cheek.

I've covered this--the paladin should have a potion or two if she's the only one capable of healing without IH. Then she can get back on her feet.

Ok, I'm trying to stay on topic here, but I'm curious.

Would people like to see more stringent tactics for demons, or would they prefer less tactics and more GM control? Specifically for creatures like demons where they have a myriad of abilities.

I agree with Eric. Sometimes less is more, and giving the goals and mindset can help us choose the tactics for our party. An opening move can usually be okay. Take this example, written by some guy named Mark:

So I'm almost always either GMing at or playing at a table that is tackling the 'correct' subtier for their group composition and overall level because I'm the liaison in charge of setting things up at our local store and I also run my home group, and I strive to give us balanced parties of the right level.

But let me tell you about it from the other side of most of these anecdotes. Last year at Paizocon, for the first time ever one of our home group players decided to try a con, and so the gf and I signed up to play a PFS game with him (we couldn't get into a ticketed event together). The gf wound up getting a ticket for Richard Pett's game, so it was down to me and my friend at a table of Icebound Outpost. We had a 7 player table, and I could either bring a level 2, a level 3, or a level 4. If I brought my level 4, our APL with the +1 for 6+ players was 4.43. So we technically were allowed to play down by that one clause in the guide. Anyway, our GM asked us to decide what tier we wanted to play. Needless to say, we wanted to play 4-5. Except one guy. He was level 2 (we didn't have any level 1s--we had 5 4 3 3 3 him and me), and he said he flat-out refused to play 4-5. He wouldn't be persuaded, he didn't offer to switch tables, and of course no one tried to pressure him to do so. Knowing it was going to be a letdown even with my level 2 character, I decided to just leave, even though I didn't get to play with my friend, since at least then the scenario would be more challenging and fun for everyone. My friend said it was still a cakewalk and one of his least favorite and most boring play experiences in his PFS history, even without me there. Turns out that the table of God's Market Gamble that I had the extreme fortune to walk into (it was literally the only thing offered that I could play and it happened to have a free seat) absolutely needed my character too or it would have been a certain TPK, so it worked out at least somewhat, but I didn't get to play with my friend and that table of Icebound still wound up being a major letdown for everyone even if I lucked out.

So I guess what I'm saying is, before this thread is completely filled with the horror stories of being forced to play up--bullying goes both ways. That level 2 player was a major bully because he should have been the one to walk. He was the only one who was even in Subtier 1-2 at a 7 player table, and he wound up ruining (or at least substantially decreasing) the fun for everyone else who stayed all by himself.

I'm glad that we've never had this drama about subtier as far as I've seen in the Boston Lodge. I think it's because of players with great attitudes who love the added excitement and don't mind when they have a challenging and exciting game with a noble and memorable death and then a split for a raise that lowers the money earned back to the lower subtier, even though it's the same reward as just playing the lower subtier to begin with.

Sidenote: Reading into Mark's query perhaps too much, if the system was changed so that playing-up characters got the lower subtier's gold, it would just make the bad part of the situation (when death happens) much much worse without the funds to defray, so please don't do that, if that's an option you're considering.

Can someone provide me with a link to an end-all be-all darkness adjudicating guide? Or a diagram? I'm thinking a Venn diagram with light, darkness, daylight, deeper darkness, and heighten daylight in prevailing light conditions of darkness, dim light, normal light, and bright light would solve the issue.

I've gotten to the bottom of it in an old thread. Basically, daylight has a special clause, so let's look at it without daylight for a moment:

Any darkness spell requires a higher level light spell to both beat it and continue to shine light. So to shine through a darkness, you need a 3rd spell level or heightened higher light spell (such as clerical continual flame) while shining through deeper darkness requires a 4th spell level or heightened higher light spell (requires heighten in other words).

Daylight has a special escape clause that says that areas of overlapping daylight and deeper darkness return to prevailing condition, which means that technically heightening daylight is useless (continual flame is a better bet).

So here's the Venn Diagram:

Prevailing Bright Light--Darkness puts you to normal light unless there is a 3rd level or higher light spell present, in which case bright light. Deeper Darkness puts you to dim light unless there is a daylight or any 4th level or higher light spell present, in which case bright light.

Prevailing Normal Light--Darkness puts you to dim light unless there is a 3rd level or higher light spell present, in which case normal light or whatever the light spell gives, whichever is better. Deeper Darkness puts you to darkness unless there is a daylight, in which case it goes back to normal light, or any 4th level or higher light spell present, in which case it goes to normal light or the light spell, whichever is better.

Prevailing Dim Light--Darkness puts you to darkness unless there is a 3rd level or higher light spell present, in which case dim light or whatever the light spell gives, whichever is better. Deeper Darkness puts you to supernatural darkness unless there is a daylight, in which case it goes back to dim light, or any 4th level or higher light spell present, in which case it goes to dim light or the light spell, whichever is better.

Prevailing Darkness--Darkness doesn't change the light level, but it does prevent nonmagical light sources from helping unless there is a 3rd level or higher light spell present, in which case whatever the light spell gives. Deeper Darkness puts you to supernatural darkness unless there is a daylight, in which case it goes back to regular darkness, or any 4th level or higher light spell present, in which case it goes to the light spell.

Other fun facts--light spells and darkness spells can be used to counterspell or dispel others of the same or lower level if you can target the object that is the target of the other spell (usually by touching it).

Not all of us can use the magical runes that you call writing that beam information into your head. That said, we "primitives", as you call us, make up for it with a strong oral tradition. I like to hope my extensive oral reports are better than the scribbled ravings of certain other (7 Int 7 Wis) agents I've known...

Grick wrote:

Tristan Windseeker wrote:

And a developer backs it up. In Pathfinder, DESPITE the language that got removed (turns out that section wasn't Open Game Content so they couldn't keep it), creatures with reach DO threaten the second diagonal.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lost?Reach-at-diagonals#12

That's Ross Byers (Assistant Software Developer) posting in 2011.

Sean K Reynolds (Designer) posted in late 2012 about how he conferred with Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) about the ruling that, while you do not threaten the 2nd diagonal, you do threaten a 10-foot band across which a creature must pass in order to move up adjacent to you.

Thread summary:

SKR 1: Measuring distance.

SKR 2: The 10-foot-radius band.

SKR 3: It's complicated.

SKR 4: Confirmation that this post "sounds right".

SKR 5: The 3.5 rule is simpler, but that's not PFRPG.

SKR 6: The RAW is not in error.

Ok so let me see if I have this right.

If a person is wielding a reach weapon then they can only attack into 4 squares? Because they can't hit adjacent to themselves, and they can't quite reach on the diagonal. Is this correct?

O=can't attack
X=can attack
P=Player

OXXXO
XOOOX
XOPOX
XOOOX
OXXXO

Natually they would still get AoO if someone moved in along the diagonal as per SKR's ruling

All of this is technically correct--however, this leads to incredible silliness where a reach-weapon wielders can never attack on their own turns in one of those diagonal hallways that are occasionally included with our scenario maps. They can still get AoOs, but they can't actually make any of their regular attacks. This leads to many GMs occasionally ignoring Sean on the grounds of the common sense rule, especially when diagonal corridors are involved.

What happens when you write something negative on a player's chronicle sheet?

"Physically scarred by a night hag in a terrifying ambush."
"Watched his brother be driven insane by a Gibbering Mouther."
"Saw his best friend dismembered by Salt Mummies."
"Now on the bad side of Grandmaster Torch after a particularly rude joke involving bathtubs."

Does the player generally have a tantrum?

Once a wizard murdered a bunch of people (not complete innocents, but the violence was unnecessary) in a scenario where the Pathfinders already have to stand trial in Qadira and then teleported to Absalom while using magic jar to possess the body of an Erinyes, cradling the corpse of his normal body in his arms. He didn't return for the rest of the scenario. Hilarity ensued at the trial, as the PCs blamed everything on the wizard. The Qadirans let the PCs go in exchange for being deputized to extradite the wizard to Qadira if they get a chance, which I wrote as a boon. The wizard got "wanted to stand trial for murder in Qadira" and I explained to everyone that the Venture Captains pulled a few strings with Aaqir al Hakam to make sure the Qadirans won't push the claim unless he goes to Qadira again. Because of the necessity of pulling in political favors which could be revoked, I also gave him the boon of being on a short leash of the Venture Captains. The player seemed to really enjoy the boon and roll with the punches, and the wizard has shaped up his act. Last time I saw him he was planar binding Hound Archons and agreeing to abide by the paladin's code of Torag in exchange for their help. I know the others still grin about that deputized boon occasionally, mentioning sometimes "Well you're lucky this last mission's in Tian Xia, since if it was Qadira...".

So sometimes players enjoy the negative boons too. Especially if they're related to the infamy of their character.

Looking only at snowball--

Snowball is the best single-target damage dealing spell at level 1 from level 1 to 5 for certain. In fact, it's strictly superior to the second level spell scorching ray from levels 4 to 6 (cold is less resisted than fire and also has more ways to build off it, like the Rime Spell feat). On top of that, it ignores SR. On top of that, it has a staggered kicker (and staggered is a very nice condition). On top of all that, it's conjuration, which is already the strongest school, and it's impinging on evocation's main shtick (damage-dealing spells).

Now, due to snowball's extreme power for its level, there's going to be a lot of builds that capitalize on this with Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage. But even if you don't take those traits, Intensified Snowball is the undisputed most powerful single-target damage-dealing spell up to level 10, even without ignoring SR or the staggered kicker. In fact, the only other contender (scorching ray), is saddled with the fact that it loses out big-time to energy resistance of any sort, so snowball is honestly a better choice even at level 11+ against many monsters. Take a demon, for instance, which has resist 10 to both fire and cold. Scorching ray with three rays does 12d6-30 (around 12), and intensified snowball does 10d6-10 (around 25). And it also ignores SR and has a staggered kicker. And of course, with magical lineage or wayang spellhunter, this intensified version is actually a 1st level spell (more a fault of those two traits being overpowered though).

Anyway, I recommend banning snowball so that choosing evocation as an opposition school means more (if conjuration has the best blasts, then why fret evocation?).

Crane Wing says: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

I noticed Crane Wing does not make the attack miss, just makes it so that it deals no damage. So would a wolf that hit's with it's bite, still get it's trip attack, or is there somewhere in the rules that says if the attack deals no damage it is considered a miss? I could not find it, but while reading the other Crane Wing thread w/ 300 posts, one of them mentioned tanking a T-rex which I think even with no damage would get it's grab/swallow.

Thank you.

It did not miss your AC, but neither is it a hit any longer--it was deflected. And anyway, if it's my thread you mean, Iakhovas was tanking a skeletal t-rex (which doesn't have Grab to begin with).

Well, what if it was just a "once in a while" thing? Like, what if the end-of-a-series axebeak boon had been on a separate sheet?

There are lots of boons that really do make sense only for the PC who played the scenario. Most of them, in fact. Those would be unchanged. But every now and then, when a series/mini-arc grants a really cool, special boon at the end, maybe those could be free-standing?

Honestly, in the case of the axebeak, it even makes more sense for it to be another character. Something like:

"You found some axebeak eggs and brought them dutifully back to the lodge. New generations of Pathfinders will raise and train these birds to become loyal and stalwart companions. You may apply the attached boon sheet to any character."

Did Lou's table turn out well? Sounds like it. But just because a particular incident turns out okay in the end doesn't mean the actions taken were appropriate. What about the next time? What about when a less-skilled GM uses your (generic "you") adjustments as an example? What about when someone takes your selective rejection of rules as standard practice and ignores whatever rules he feels aren't for him?

This isn't the first time the topic has come up. And every time it comes up, the answer is the same: either play PFS according to PFS rules, or play a different campaign according to rules you find more suitable to your tastes (which is totally okay). But do not participate in a campaign whose rules you intend to ignore. Playing in PFS without following campaign rules is no better than...

I don't disagree. I'm just saying, we're being naive if we think everyone is following this except the few who are willing to admit it on the messageboards. Our local Lodge (and I'm sure yours as well) is strong on following all the rules in play, but other places are doing things differently, and we're not going to convince them to come to us and listen unless we show more understanding to those like Lou who are willing to tell us about it.

In other words, imagine you're playing in a group that doesn't read the forum much and you know you might be doing things wrong, so you start reading the forums a bit more (or maybe you never knew you might be doing things wrong but started reading the forums and now begin to suspect it)--I think you'd be more likely to reach out for help if the responses to others in a similar situation were more understanding.

Yeah, middle is better. It's both RAW and canon.

I'm with Mark and Jiggy on this one, sorry nosig. Also the middle brownies are so delicious that it's distracting, so you can't Take 10.

Sean H wrote:

I always vote to play up, and I know several others at my FLGS who do as well. Death is common, but the games are more interesting and we're generally prepared with contingencies. It makes the game feel more like the dangerous adventuring it is and not something any ol' commoner could do.

We also generally follow the "single down vote carries" rule, and make a big point to everyone (especially those newer to our group) that there is no stigma or hard feelings about voting down if you don't feel comfortable. If playing up is unanimous and no one has been pressured into it, it makes the risk more acceptable and the rewards well earned.

That said, I have been making a point of pointing out the added risk in Season 4 for playing up, and cautioned my tables who were discussing playing up.

Yeah we play that if anyone wants to play down and you're in between subtiers, we play down (in other words, you need unanimous to play up). If you are actually at the higher subtier solidly (so like you have APL between 4 and 4.5 in a 1-5) due to 6 players in a pre Season 4 scenario, then instead you need a majority to play down instead of playing at the appropriate subtier.

That said, I'm a reasonably good judge of when too much is too much, and so I generally offer my frank advice when a group is unsure, based on my knowledge of the scenario and the group's capacities and cohesiveness. I've never been badly wrong about which subtier to play so far (in that I've never suggested playing up to a TPK or deathgrind and I've never suggested playing down to a cakewalk). If possible, I want the group to experience a fun challenge, with neither a cakewalk nor a deathgrind.

Just make the caster Neutral aligned.

They did that in an early S4 scenario, and so far all it's done that I've seen is made people rather cross that the ridiculously evil serial killer BBE was given a neutral alignment, seemingly only to prevent Protection from Evil. So I'd revise that to say, make them neutral but really make them neutral, don't just flip the alignment.

One time in Magnimar, Gloriana Morilla sent me on a mission that was not befitting of her at all--more like one of those awful Jacquo Dalsine "Fetch me some teacups and also I want to have a torrid love affair with poison" missions. So I intentionally refused her and used my skill at matchmaking to arrange some political alliances tying Magnimar's noble families to Taldor's. I figured if the brutish Andoran barbarian was going to a dinner party at that point in the scenario, why shouldn't I? I later found the poison mold she wanted but just didn't gather it. She should be ashamed of herself for that mission; I thought she was bringing a change to Taldor.

I like it, and it could be a great aid for spellcasters of all sorts.

You might worry about abuse, but I can't think of a single duration based spell that could benefit from this and still be broken, as you just have the limitation of the original spell caster's duration limit re-applied...unless you want to take a chance to break your cool magic device!

Expensive, but worth the cost in my opinion, and again it is good for all levels of play.

Hey Jeremy--The issue some of us mentioned above, explained more succintly, is that you can sometimes have spells with durations greater than 24 hours (hour / level spells with Extend Spell at Caster Level 12 or so, right around when you'll start having enough money for this item). Since the timepiece lets you reset the duration every 24 hours, and since the duration is greater than 24 hours, those spells now last forever as long as you use the timepiece at least once a day. Check my post last page for a list of which spells could be affected (I went through hour/level spells looking for beneficial spells that target one or more creatures).

Thanks again to everyone who's provided input and constructive criticism. In particular, I'd like to thank Template Fu (who'd have thought a spelling bee champ would misspell pocket watch?) and especially Rogue Eidolon for pointing out just which spells could be kept up indefinitely.

No trouble! I really took my time thinking for each item judgment, making lists like that one when I wondered if an item was too powerful, and I'm glad you've taken so well to constructive criticism, even though I admitted I had your item on my auto-reject list. That's the sign of a good freelancer in my book.

Avatar-1 wrote:

I can't think of where I might buy this over a pearl of power?

I like the way you think. That is definitely how we judges look at items even if we don't mention it specifically in our comments. That is a very helpful way to evaluate your item.

Yep, that was how I was looking at this item as well.

In addition to all the other goodies you get with this item in doubling shorter-term buffs, you can also use it to have extended hour/level spells up on yourself forever, which makes it a little better than a gaggle of Pearls of Power if you want to have those spells each day because it allows you to not even prepare the spells at all, whereas Pearl of Power you have to prepare it but you get two of them.

The item only gets more powerful with the more extended Hour/Level spells you have up on you starting at level 12 because you can have them all up permanently as well. Mage armor, water breathing, planar adaptation, resurgent transformation, delay poison (becoming immune to all poison because it is delayed forever), life bubble, ward of the season, nondetection, darkvision, ant haul, overland flight, lose the trail, eagle soul (as long as you don't activate the kicker), pass without trace, animal shapes, blessing of the watch, bloodhound, countless eyes, deadeye's lore, raiment of command, longstrider, delay pain, tireless pursuit, and ride the waves are the ones I could find.

So if look at a few big ones off the list, with permanent high caster-level nondetection we are superior to the Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location (costs 35,000 gold), with permanent darkvision, we are equivalent to Goggles of the Night (costs 12,000 gold), with permanent overland flight, we are superior to the Broom of Flying (17,000 gold and only 9 hours a day) and much much more (including Necklace of Adaptation due to life bubble). All that, and you can also use it to extend your short-duration spells too, as long as you always remember to use it once a day. It's likely to be better than Pearls of Power just for the doubling of short duration spells while in the dungeon (assuming that you would otherwise need to prepare two copies of each).

Based on this analysis, the item is at the very least extremely undercosted (honestly I wouldn't allow it in my campaign as anything less than an artifact), though if I was a developer working on this item, I would likely insert a clause that stated that no single spell may have its duration reset by this item more than once and curb all that stuff.

Now all that said, it was an interesting idea. I voted against this item every time I saw it due to balance issues (essentially that I thought it should be an artifact based on its power level), but you clearly have what it takes to design something quite interesting. To win me back, you're going to have to bring your A-game--use all that creativity from the timepiece but also show me in the archetype round that you're particularly taking an eye toward balance. I'm looking forward to seeing what you create!

When I first saw the CR 19 Tzitzimitl, I was impressed with its Light to Dark ability (which can allow it to transform a PC cleric's heal attempt into damage instead). It's pretty much guaranteed to kill multiple PCs if any of them get low during the fight. It's dastardly evil and just right for a rare CR 19 monster. In my opinion, this is not something we want to see on a wondrous item. For 1,500 gp, why wouldn't all evil overlords past a certain point have one of these on their person or at least on a minion whose standard action isn't as valuable. I know I would have had at least two deaths and likely a TPK in Part 6 of Rise of the Runelords in literally any of the last 10 encounters if one of these items had been present, which seems to me like it means the price point needed to be much higher than 1,500 gold (considering how high level those PCs are). Since PCs are much more likely than NPCs to run around channeling to heal, this is only really a problem from the bad guy side.

Anyway, the idea was creative and well-flavored, but the balance in my opinion is way off. I downvoted your item consistently for that reason, so you'll need to really think about balance for your archetype if you want to win me back. I'm looking forward to seeing it and hoping that with that feedback in mind, you'll really impress me next time!

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Last Thursday at the game store, we played a game where someone would read off an pair of items and I had to be able to give a synopsis for each item from memory. I was accurate about 80% of the time.

Some friends were making characters recently for a PFS-like Shattered Star game, but while everyone else was thinking of PFS-legal item options for their characters, I just couldn't get the endless list of RPGSS items out of my head! I seriously need to recover from this voting process, and I wasn't even one of the top voters.

Shine on, you crazy voting diamonds.

My gf came up with the idea for a one-shot involving opening voting pages and then equipping the characters with no magic items other than one or the other of those items. Before the cull, it would have been a bit of a comedic one-shot for sure...

That said, if you want to it a table with an industry pro, there are PLENTY of those run by Paizo staff, Paizo freelancer contributors like me, and 3PP authors (also like me), many of whom are delightful GMs

(Also like Jason)

"Whoever left this hair at the crime scene"