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

Rogue Eidolon's page

3,572 posts. Alias of Mark Seifter (Designer).


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,572 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since it doesn't say they count as each other's self for that purpose, it would be a standard action (the limit is for the master casting personal spells from the class that granted the familiar; an Improved Familiar can't use personal spells on the master, as one other example).

*****

Andrew Shumate wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
TheEverbloodFighter wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
Matt Lewis wrote:

The Guide says:

Quote:
Additionally, any magic items whose usage frequencies are less than 1/day (such as 1/week or 1/month and so on) are considered to have the frequency of 1/scenario.
...which I guess would apply to downtime too?
Technically you can use it all you want during a scenario, but it doesn't really matter. It remakes the potion only if you drink it, so you'll never have more potions than what you started with. So you can drink that potion of bull's strength all you want during downtime - not really going to help you once the scenario starts again.
As I didn't see it specifically called out in the item's description, I have a feeling that there are people who will think they can alchemical allocation the contents into an empty vial, thus creating effectively infinite amounts of the same potion (and in an indeterminable downtime one could potentially exploit this greatly). I do understand that the allocated potions cannot be sold for value, however they allow for surplus potions of a potentially useful sort (CSW, Fly, Bull's Strength, Enlarge Person, etc.).

Alch alloc specifically indicates that you have to spit it back into its container, not another container.

Alchemical Allocation wrote:
you can spit it back into its container as a free action.
Certainly, but it doesn't indicate in the text that the item behaves according to the rules of alchemical allocation. While it is used in the creation of the item, items don't always follow the rules of the source spells. The item's text does not indicate that the potion must be drunk from the flask.
This discussion should probably move to another thread. However, it does say that:
Flask of Reconcoction wrote:
If a potion in the flask is poured out of the flask, rather than drunk directly from it, the flask does not reconcoct that potion.

*****

TheEverbloodFighter wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
Matt Lewis wrote:

The Guide says:

Quote:
Additionally, any magic items whose usage frequencies are less than 1/day (such as 1/week or 1/month and so on) are considered to have the frequency of 1/scenario.
...which I guess would apply to downtime too?
Technically you can use it all you want during a scenario, but it doesn't really matter. It remakes the potion only if you drink it, so you'll never have more potions than what you started with. So you can drink that potion of bull's strength all you want during downtime - not really going to help you once the scenario starts again.
As I didn't see it specifically called out in the item's description, I have a feeling that there are people who will think they can alchemical allocation the contents into an empty vial, thus creating effectively infinite amounts of the same potion (and in an indeterminable downtime one could potentially exploit this greatly). I do understand that the allocated potions cannot be sold for value, however they allow for surplus potions of a potentially useful sort (CSW, Fly, Bull's Strength, Enlarge Person, etc.).

Alch alloc specifically indicates that you have to spit it back into its container, not another container.

Alchemical Allocation wrote:
you can spit it back into its container as a free action.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Neat ideas ColonelMidas! I continue to be glad that people are getting a kick out of this archetype.


Kalindlara wrote:
Could you post as Rogue Eidolon, to make your unofficial status clear?

I also do that sometimes when I post in other threads. Based on experience, it won't help in the particular situation of FAQ follow-ups (in fact it's in some ways even worse) because confusion is not the only reason not to do them. What you'll see next is that (to use butter-side up and butter-side down as an example to illustrate) that if I post butter-side up as Rogue Eidolon, Yooks will use this to flare up butter-side up stance, saying that this definitively proves BSU, while Zooks will point out that I chose to post as Rogue Eidolon, thus either proving BSD or at least weakening BSU because otherwise I would have posted as Mark Seifter.


N. Jolly wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Kineticists... don't have many magic items to use. That's something that just struck me.

How about the following?
- A rod for Kinetic Blade/Whip that grants melee weapon enhancements to the Blade/Whip when attacking.

- A gauntlet that does the same thing for Kinetic Fist.

- A pair of gauntlets that grants ranged weapon enhancements to Blasts.

The original book did have something like that in mind, but I ended up scrapping it. I really should try to include something like that in the sequel, I do want to include some more magic items to help round out things, so I'll probably work on something like that for the next book.

Also didn't know you could make a post without actually typing something learned something new.

I bet I know why you had to end up scrapping the AoMF for blasts; same reason I did in Occult: The math. It throws off three different balances. 1) Physical vs. Energy (and in so doing, element balance), 2) Blade/Whip vs. Ranged, 3) Kineticist vs. Other Characters (especially physical melee kineticist or annihilator). That said, since it's something people who don't check the math and just think about what they want think about, I'd say a 3pp book with a disclaimer or warning about these things (like in Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler how I put a disclaimer warning that reveler evolutions are dangerous to allow for regular eidolons, but you can if you want) is actually a great (maybe the best) way to handle it. Eventually, someone who doesn't check the math as much as you did is just going to put one out without a disclaimer (that's what I sometimes worry about myself).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stantree wrote:

Ready Action

"The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so)."

So Ready Action doesn't have 100% parameters on what is the trigger for the readied action. With Rhino Charge, if I am correct, I could ready action Charge after I leap, since that is only a Standard Action.

I still have movement, because Rhino Charge, which allows me to complete the acrobatics movement to leap up over the enemy for the charge.


I'm interested in this topic because I'm considering starting a Wrath game with my home group, and I'm definitely going to be modding the rules, particularly the specific abilities you mentioned were on my list (other than reading MVS like deinol, though even then, I've seen MVS acting rather ridiculously), with very similar planned fixes (my fix for surges, for instance, is to make them a "surge" action that is once per round but separate from swift/immediate). I've used mythic a fair amount for adversaries and seen it in that one PFS scenario for PCs, but I don't have tons of non-theoretical experience with mythic PCs yet. Still, it's good to know that your group is having issues with some of the same abilities I had flagged in my read-through.

I'm also worried about abilities like recuperation and sustained by faith that refresh everything more times in a day.

Posted here just as a regular GM, interested in modding mythic for my game, not a designer or anything; this system was written way before I got here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of note, while the edits don't change the overall text much, it seems that they will have a major effect for many people (Wanna run it on a non-AP? We have you covered!), so if you're a proud owner, be absolutely sure to check the new version out!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, many thanks Oliver. I love the imagery in the way you liken the breakthroughs to boss fights in all your reviews, and I've used that imagery from your review in conversation myself after your review of the original UR.

Reviews always make me want to finish more, and the morale bonus increases my speed, so it's definitely true that more reviews means more URs sooner!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I first saw the pride emotional focus, I thought some of the benefits were really strong (double morale bonuses, holy cow!), but then I realized that you're really likely to wind up failing a passively-required check and lose the benefits (and take penalties), whether it's failing a Perception check against one out of eight monsters who rolled really high on Stealth (and thus acting on the surprise round but not knowing about the eighth guy), failing a Sense Motive against something's Bluff, etc, so I'd suggest caution with using it (it also prevents you from ever Taking 20 while the benefits are up, since there is always a consequence of failure). It could be quite effective on a phantom, where you could have it in your consciousness and not able to attempt any checks (and thus fail them), but it's trickier if it's on your main character (plus you can't avoid morale bonuses as a bloodrager).

Designer

Thanks for the review Malwing!

I had the pleasure of running a one shot with a reveler in it since the last time I came to this thread, and I was quite pleased with how much out of combat narrative stuff the reveler was contributing during the party's investigations, through skill masks with Task Reveler and especially liberal use of speak with plants when appropriate. Certainly more than a "normal" barbarian. I hadn't really given a reveler to someone outside of my own group until then, so I hadn't seen how it would work for someone who was less familiar with it.


Thanks so much for the review Oliver!

When running rank-ups, keep in mind that rank-ups can be used as a flat ability check at a lower DC (For instance, DC 28 skill checks = DC 19 ability check, though if it's trained-only there is an increase) and that you receive a cumulative +2 bonus for each attempt at a rank-up, so by design, if you keep at it, you are eventually guaranteed to succeed; it just might take a while. If she has affinity for you, you get a +2 on everything and need fewer CP to reach the next rank, so her affinity for fighters and skalds also has a mechanical effect of assisting them a good deal.

***** Designer

Mark Stratton wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Here's the weird thing about it. As written, it seems it's only for natural fliers, but if so, then there is literally no effect of maneuverability whatsoever for magical fliers, so things like wings of lesser flying, which are currently priced as if their bad maneuverability is a drawback, get out of jail free.

Given the fact that the spell specifically gives it a maneuverability rating, I think it only makes sense to apply the bonus for doing so. If it had a poor rating, the penalty would apply (as you indicated related to the pricing for a magic item.)

But perhaps the development team could take a look.

That was always my inclination as well (otherwise why would it matter, anyway?), but then the rules say it's for natural fly speeds only, putting it into table variation. Maybe someone should start a thread in the rules forum; if or when there's enough interest in the FAQ queue, I'd be happy to have us Design team members take a look at FAQing it.

*****

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the weird thing about it. As written, it seems it's only for natural fliers, but if so, then there is literally no effect of maneuverability whatsoever for magical fliers, so things like wings of lesser flying, which are currently priced as if their bad maneuverability is a drawback, get out of jail free.

*****

Talon Stormwarden wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
... in exchange for static spirits, they do get twice as many of the variable choices as the base medium, which is a significant increase and the archetype's main benefit...
Except for Marshal and Guardian, which get no benefit at all. :(

This is because they don't have anything to choose, so they also have no drawback for it being the same spirit.

*****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For all those mentioning relic channeler as a reason to go hardline against normal mediums, in exchange for static spirits, they do get twice as many of the variable choices as the base medium, which is a significant increase and the archetype's main benefit (if you wind up choosing more-or-less the same choices most days, getting twice as many is better, whereas if you are constantly choosing very different options, flexibility is better). I urge you to instead use the FAQ on medium spirit locations as a guide.

*****

Matthew Morris wrote:

Hmm,

Wonder if I can shift skill points around on an regular riding dog to simulate the Embeth hound. The PC my GM credit went on has two halfling slaves, so making a hunter who bonded with his masters trophy hound and joined the society.... *makes note to play with Hero Lab when I get home*

Either way, slavery is fiercely illegal in the River Kingdoms, so you might want to go with one of the dog breeds from Knights of the Inner Sea instead; I think there's rules for them in there too.

*****

I shouldn't count for more than any other PFS GM, but I'd allow it at my table for the staff reason Sebastian mentioned.

*****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:

I would probably swap out Skill Focus (Bluff) for Masterwork Tool (voluminous robes) (+2 to bluff checks to conceal spell casting.) at least at low levels.

If you are worried about skill points, how about an witch or wizard with cunning wordplay (bluff) (use int for charisma.) Downside is you lose eschew materials, upside (for wizard) is you get some extra feats to play with.

I also don't have a good read on how many components most buff spells have. I agree 2 seems like a reasonable assumption, but I haven't done the research.

Fair point. Also don't forget mesmerist (+1/2 level on all Bluff checks, usually none of the components).

*****

Hmm, that situation seems a fair amount off-tactics. Lemme post up the tactics block in a spoiler.

Tactics:
Tactics wrote:
The ceustodaemons cast slow, then hold monster, as they hope that they can harvest flesh without resistance from their victims. Afterward, they alternate between using their breath weapons and their melee attacks. They focus their melee attacks on the most dangerous PCs, and aim their breath weapons to hit as many PCs as possible.

and

Tactics wrote:


The ceustodaemons cast slow, then hold monster, hoping they can harvest flesh without resistance. They focus their melee attacks on the most dangerous PCs, and aim their breath weapons to hit as many PCs as possible.

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

I believe that the class feature requiring particular locations to channel a legend are intended to be a handicap, much the same as an oracle's curse or a wizard's reliance on his spellbook is designed to be a drawback.

If every Pathfinder Lodge counts as a stage, a maze, etc, then there's no drawback. If a PC can carry "portable forts" / libraries / etc. around with him, then there's no drawback.

At my table, you'll need to do more than "perform a small monologue for your friends" out in the woods if you want to channel a legend that requires a stage.

As the FAQ linked by Markov mentions, it's intended to be part of the RP of the class, and it might be possible that a character can't channel all 6 spirits in particular circumstances, but the character can set up a location. Your example of such "do a small monologue for friends in the woods" I agree wouldn't be enough, but if you searched through the woods for a little while for a clearing with good acoustics, set up in the best acoustic spot to carry throughout the clearing, and then did a performance? I'd say that's a stage.

*****

FLite wrote:
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:

I'm running this tonight, and it's going to come up (knowing my players), so what is a fey circle? Is there any extra background or details on such a thing in any Paizo source? I keep getting Magic Circle Against X spells when I google.

The scenario implies it's a fey-specific shrine, I guess? Combined with the old "ancient Native American burial ground" hence building something on top of it being a problem.

I think it is essentially a fey stone henge

Also they not only built a time based magical device in the middle of a fey stone henge dedicated to the fey lord of time, they took the most important stone in the circle, broke it into pieces, and used it as part of the building.

Basically they installed a flux capacitor on a Tardis, and then put the whole thing on a train going 88 miles an hour. We are lucky they only broke the town, not the planet.

That's a hilarious metaphor, and it seems pretty apt to me. There's a reason the fey call her "Reckless Rhona."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:

Huh. I ended up not liking the AE versions and actually recreating a similar list to the original set. Mine are Prosperity, Love, Confidence, Plenty, Striving, Zeal, and Efficiency.

I agree the original set makes more sense as a set of virtues that were twisted rather than just opposite day. And generally provide a lot more nuance to the Thassilonians as villains.

The new set may work better if you're tracking sin points. The virtues can "take away" their associated sins in that setup.

Cheers!
Landon

My home group uses something similar to yours, to keep it as something where a good thing became amplified into a bad thing, and following the point that James made that they have to be actual states of mind:

Frugality->Greed
Passion->Lust
Confidence->Pride
Fulfillment->Gluttony
Ambition->Envy
Zeal->Wrath
Efficiency->Sloth

*****

Be sure to write a review to let authors/developers/other players know what you think!


Swashbucklersdc wrote:
Wow, I just downloaded and read this. It was touching and very well written, I cannot wait to use this character as an NPC. Thank you! If this is the quality of the line, this first entry has made me a permanent subscriber!

I hope that my additions to the line will continue to meet or exceed your quality expectations! And on a personal note, it's really gratifying to me particularly that you found it touching.

UR basically started from my translation of the stuff I wrote up for my home game (where I'm running the Far Eastern Adventure Path) for public consumption, and my home players love that little lyrakien (recent party vote determined that something bad happens every time she's not there, so they said they're never leaving her behind again).

Anyways, please leave a review to get the word out to others!


_Ozy_ wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

So I noticed the Iconic Alchemist has a wand of Alchemical Allocation.

Now I know Alchemists can not qualify for craft feats.

But can they provide the Alchemical Allocation when someone else creats s the wand as an aid?

Like where did this wand come from?

Some players I play with claim it is impossible. Others say they can aid.

What is the ruling on the existence of these things?

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about, but that is not an iconic character. It's a fan creation on a website called pathfindercommunity.net. I believe that by the rules such a wand is impossible, personally, because extracts are not spells, so as extract-only, alch alloc is not actually a spell at all. Like many things, I think it could use an FAQ.

How do the alchemists make potions?

Quote:
At 1st level, alchemists receive Brew Potion as a bonus feat. An alchemist can brew potions of any formulae he knows (up to 3rd level), using his alchemist level as his caster level. The spell must be one that can be made into a potion. The alchemist does not need to meet the prerequisites for this feat.
It refers to 'spells' and does not explicitly say that the formulae are 'treated as spells' for this ability (just alchemist level as caster level), therefore formulae must generically count as spells for the creation of magic items.

That wording there indicates that Brew Potion had need to make a special exception for the alchemist, and it still didn't say that all extracts were spells, just that only the formulae that are formulae of spells that could be made into a potion can be made into a potion (thus, implying that formulae can be the equivalent of a spell, not that they always are).


Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

So I noticed the Iconic Alchemist has a wand of Alchemical Allocation.

Now I know Alchemists can not qualify for craft feats.

But can they provide the Alchemical Allocation when someone else creats s the wand as an aid?

Like where did this wand come from?

Some players I play with claim it is impossible. Others say they can aid.

What is the ruling on the existence of these things?

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about, but that is not an iconic character. It's a fan creation on a website called pathfindercommunity.net. I believe that by the rules such a wand is impossible, personally, because extracts are not spells, so as extract-only, alch alloc is not actually a spell at all. Like many things, I think it could use an FAQ.

*****

Daniel Myhre wrote:
Well, so long as it's not magic you can use the Mend spell to repair it too. And Make Whole could be used, but only if you didn't heavily enchant it. Think you have to be twice the level of the bonus you're adding if you were crafting, right? Or is it level divided by 4? Either way by level 12 I think you could only fix a magic item of total enhancement value equal to +3, maybe +4?

Society has a special rule for spellcasting services, if I recall, that lets you find even an illegally-leveled 40th level caster to fix your destroyed item for you after a scenario if necessary (though you do have to pay the price), but yeah, if an item is destroyed, you will eventually not be able to fix it yourself, and even if broken (when you need CL instead of CLx2) it can be challenging to fix it yourself during the scenario. Since the FAQ on battle host reminds that you can't use an ability with a cost of breaking something if that something is already broken, this is still potentially a useful combo, since you suffer no penalties for it being broken, but only 1/scenario if you can't fix it yourself.

*****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
A fun, memorable note from you as the GM scrawled on the Chronicle is always a nice touch.

This is worth more than it might seem. I try to do this whenever I remember. The first time I saw it was when my brother's chaotic gnome, having found a scroll of lesser planar binding in a scenario with evil outsiders, proceeded to call a hound archon. At the end, the GM wrote like "A hound archon's grudging respect" or something like that on the sheet.


My home game players really like that little lyrakien. I hope you guys do too!


Deranged_Maniac_Ben wrote:
Quote:
(incidentally, I have some tweaks to Ultimate Relationships that should hit your downloads as an update eventually if you own the pdf, which explain in detail how to run these in non-APs).

Good, that update will hopefully address one of my two primary complaints about UR (the other complain was that it references 'cards' without any hint as to what it was talking about until I asked you on the forum and you directed me to a Paizo product I had never even heard of \end{mini rant}).

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another advantage to my policy of reviewing products that are at least a year old: it allows updates and errata to be reflected in my ratings.

That's how it works for plug-ins. They don't refer to tie-in products by name. The updates are not going to insert the name of the divination deck product because they can't (the mechanics and names of the individual cards are open content though). Similarly, it's up to the reader to figure out which adventure path the Far Eastern Adventure Path is. You don't need the cards to proceed with relationships in any case. They are listed to assist with in-game divinations, organization, and flavorful random selection of NPCs. You could easily do a set of relationships in your game for every NPC and just not bother with cards (or use playing cards if you like). I use them a lot in my own games and find them a useful tool (once people associate cards with characters, the random divinations start seeming really meaningful and they're like "Oh wow, it's that character"), but I don't imagine that everyone would, even if they had the cards on hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Nelson wrote:

First one is off to layout and should be ready for Monday!

One of the advantages to doing these products as singles is that it frees up both individual writers to create specific characters and relationship arcs that really resonate with them, which means we have more potential for variety in creators and in the characers they create. We'll still do combo products when they make sense, for APs that have a core of several main NPCs, but we aren't bound specifically to that model if we've got other NPCs that just don't quite fit that structure.

Another advantage, to be honest, is that some of those other APs don't have as cut and dry of a "duh" set as Far Eastern. Far Eastern actually stats those four out for its own relationship system, whereas, say, in a kingdom building AP, there might be many possible NPCs and some groups latch onto one and ignore another, such that GM A would think "Why didn't this have the Old Witch of the Swamp? My group uses her as the magister" on one side and GM B might think "My group hated the Old Witch of the Swamp and killed her. If she's one of the four in here, I really don't need this book." By splitting out, there could be, for instance, a separate Ultimate Relationships: Old Witch of the Swamp that's generic enough to fit any time you need a character like that, while being just the ticket for GM A's kingdom building game too. It also helps with Endzeitgeist's observations that he wished the line was more useful for non-Adventure Path GMs because he'd like to use it more (incidentally, I have some tweaks to Ultimate Relationships that should hit your downloads as an update eventually if you own the pdf, which explain in detail how to run these in non-APs).

Does that make sense Eric and Swashbuckler?

Designer

Bat familiar offers blindsense and flight, which is pretty nice (and a great reason to choose something new like a bat, rather than the ubiquitous initiative familiars that don't have anything great for a witch). Another benefit is that nobody can kill your familiar while melded. For a witch that can be pretty important.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hrothdane wrote:

I love Chosen One.

I made the reincarnated King Arthur traveling with Merlin's familiar Archimedes, and I'm loving it <3

Oh man, that's awesome! It's just too bad Archimedes wasn't a sage familiar. He was one of the main inspirations for the sage familiar archetype!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Fromper wrote:

So out of curiosity, I just looked up the archetype. You delay getting smite evil to level 2 and divine grace to level 4 in order to get a familiar that can lay on hands for you, and free improved familiar feat at level 7.

So if you're playing from level 1, your paladin will be handicapped early. But once you hit level 4, you've got all the standard paladin stuff, plus the familiar that can fly around the battlefield healing people with your lay on hands, on top of being a normal familiar. So there's no down side at all after level 3. That's pretty much the definition of power creep right there.

Sounds interesting. If I was looking to make another character, I might consider it.

You do lose divine bond at level 4, and you never get it back, so that familiar is instead of a mount. That's the reason the abilities give you the run-around like that: the familiar is a replacement for divine bond, but it comes earlier than divine bond.

Ahh, ok. I read that it loses divine bond, but forgot that when trying to wrap my head around the whole archetype at once.

So you get a familiar instead of a mount or auto-magic weapon. I guess that's closer to balanced, though the fact that the familiar counts as an extra healer for the party probably makes it slightly better than what it's replacing. I'd still call it power creep, but not by nearly as much as I originally thought.

Actually, I was thinking about it, and I have a paladin in PFS that I'm playing up as young and naive. He just hit level 2, and I haven't played him since hitting level 2, so I could "rebuild" him if I want. I might just consider switching to this archetype.

Yup, it's a potential action gain, which is very helpful, though the double price for that healing limits daily sustainability too, and the familiar isn't wanding or anything else with those actions. The Player Companion line is definitely the place to go for options that push the envelope in terms of power (which also makes it a fun place to blaze new frontiers), and in that regard, I think Chosen One is not above-average for an archetype in that line. I hope that it's a fun archetype that allows for some cool concepts. Incidentally, I wrote it, hence knowing the intent of the trade-offs. Also, when Intrigue comes out, I think Rednal is going to be...very happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

So out of curiosity, I just looked up the archetype. You delay getting smite evil to level 2 and divine grace to level 4 in order to get a familiar that can lay on hands for you, and free improved familiar feat at level 7.

So if you're playing from level 1, your paladin will be handicapped early. But once you hit level 4, you've got all the standard paladin stuff, plus the familiar that can fly around the battlefield healing people with your lay on hands, on top of being a normal familiar. So there's no down side at all after level 3. That's pretty much the definition of power creep right there.

Sounds interesting. If I was looking to make another character, I might consider it.

You do lose divine bond at level 4, and you never get it back, so that familiar is instead of a mount. That's the reason the abilities give you the run-around like that: the familiar is a replacement for divine bond, but it comes earlier than divine bond.


I'll point out this book of psychopomp planetouched as a potential resource for your efforts.


DM Beckett wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Black Waters was a lot of fun. I should GM it again before doing this one.
IMO, the coolest experience would be to intentionally grab a group of players expecting to go to School of Spirits and have them build characters with the idea that they are fresh-faced young recruits, running Confirmation and Black Waters and a few other adventures that are fun for low levels, and then have them "age up" the characters for Season 7 (assuming they started in Season 0, so add +7 years), perhaps gradually with 1 year for every scenario after Black Waters (making School of Spirits their 10th, so they play in subtier 4-5) or just all at once at some point.
I don't know, I've always found The Confirmation boring and underwhelming. Silent Tide and Blakros Museum Scenarios (minus Silver Mount), though would be a pretty epic run.

The idea was to emphasize the fact that these were fresh recruits on their first missions. Replace with any other scenario you prefer and you could even call it their confirmation! :)


Fromper wrote:
Black Waters was a lot of fun. I should GM it again before doing this one.

IMO, the coolest experience would be to intentionally grab a group of players expecting to go to School of Spirits and have them build characters with the idea that they are fresh-faced young recruits, running Confirmation and Black Waters and a few other adventures that are fun for low levels, and then have them "age up" the characters for Season 7 (assuming they started in Season 0, so add +7 years), perhaps gradually with 1 year for every scenario after Black Waters (making School of Spirits their 10th, so they play in subtier 4-5) or just all at once at some point.

*****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Elizabeth Corrigan wrote:

I ran this last week in the low tier. A player solved the puzzle right away.

One question I had---Henbane doesn't have knowledge(local), at least not at low tier, didn't check high. To use her bane ability, she has to be able to id the creature. Can we assume she knows the basic Society humanoids? Does she have to roll a 10 untrained to target them?

I've seen some variation on whether an inquisitor can set their bane to "THAT THING!" or not.

Most humanoids are going to be a DC 10 though.

Yeah, or less even. Since goblins are the CRB example of something that's common and thus DC 5, humans, at the bare minimum, would also be DC 5.

*****

Blackbot wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
To be honest, the only thing about the puzzle is that I don't understand where the future versions of the PCs got the hash marks from. It's like knowing the password is banana because future you told you so. And if that's the explanation, that's fine.

Wait a second. Future PCs? As in time travel?

Is that the GM only-explanation or are the PCs supposed to find this out?
Because that would've been one hell of a revelation!

If I remember correctly, the GM is encouraged to use phrasing to make it sound like a PC wrote the clues as they appeared, and then the players can get involved in adding little additional style flourishes once they figure it out.

EDIT: As TOZ quoted!

*****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
To be honest, the only thing about the puzzle is that I don't understand where the future versions of the PCs got the hash marks from. It's like knowing the password is banana because future you told you so. And if that's the explanation, that's fine.

If I recall correctly, the initial handout is in Sylvan and comes from a source other than the future PCs. The future PCs only add the new clues.

*****

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Quadstriker, I take it you were the GM at Game Depot last sunday? I really enjoyed playing that with you, and I appreciate the effort you put into the roleplay. It's too bad the puzzle was kinda obtuse to figure out -- I really liked it as a puzzle, but the solution was kinda out of left field there, and I still don't quite get how Steven was able to figure it out. Intuitive leaps for the win, I guess.

The way the puzzle was presented was fascinating, I just wish it hadn't been such a slog to figure out.

I really liked the giant non-euclidean clocktower, and my character got to defend the amazing invention in the name of Brigh from a person trying to destroy it. (I think I didn't really explain that motivation very well, so I apologize if it came off as "I'm chaotic neutral and I'm going to bomb her because I had a whim!" when it was supposed to be "I'm a worshipper of Brigh and you will pay for attacking this technological marvel!")

Anyway. I give this a 4/5. Everything except the puzzle clues and solution were excellent.

That sounds like some really cool RP at the end; I bet if you kept at that argument, you might even have been able to convince her to agree with you too!

Anyways, you should totally share that in the reviews section, where others can check it out too. Follow my link!


Dekalinder wrote:

Yea now I get it. The mistake was that there was no rule to override. Originally I was so sure that that quote was not from a dev that I actually wrote it in my post, then I edited out when I checked Owen's new tag before the angry mob would catch it ^^.

They really should take your habit of having a "double identity". Next time they level up make sure they get a level in vigilante.

Who's that Mark Seifter guy anyway?

*****

I talked to some of the people running this at Gencon. Here's one way I've seen for the three stages that seems to work pretty well. It involves letting the players know one bit but otherwise lets them do what they want:

Let the players know that they have a chance at the beginning to try to throw Sloan off his game to get advantages when it comes time to actually deal with him. This is Stage 1, and it covers the first three things the PCs try to do to throw him off (using the suggestions in the scenario to raise the DC but allow it if they try other things than the ones listed).

If they don't do that and go right to Stage 2 stuff, then that's fine; skip to Stage 2 in that case. They just don't get the small bonus from Stage 1.

There's no danger they will skip to Stage 3, since all of the bits in Stage 3 are based off Sloan's statement at the end of Stage 2, as well as facts for which you give them a passive check in Stage 3 (so Stage 3 isn't free-form, but they also can't get lost, as you are calling for the appropriate checks there).

This allows you to let the PCs do what they want to do, more-or-less as free-form as they like, for the stages that involve their own ideas and interactions. At most they might not get the +2 from Stage 1 on their checks in Stage 2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks Libertad! Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler was a major labor of love for me, since I love fey and I love giving martial characters more options out of combat. I'm thrilled that it's had such a great reception!

I ran an investigation game a few months ago, and the reveler was gathering some great information (a combination of excellent social skills and creative use of plantspeech). Not bad for a barbarian!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:
Reminds me of Annie and Tibbers of League of Legends, but that might be coincidence. ;o) Anyway, well written. I decided to pass on Occult Adventures a while ago, but with each article I get more tempted...

You should give Occult Adventures a try, one eidolon to another. Don't be sheepish here; go rogue!


ElterAgo wrote:

I have been asked to start putting up reviews/comments on scenarios. So even though this is an old one, here it be.

We played at the low tier with 5 PC's. Granted they were all 2nd (almost 3rd) so geared pretty well. But the fights were just ridiculously easy. I think almost everyone went down on the first hit. One of the guys who kept rolling poorly in initiative never even got to do anything except move toward the fights before it was over.

But really, I can't see anything that should have kept all the fights separate either. They should have been able to see/hear if on guard. Then if all of them had swarmed us, it probably would have been too hard for 1st level PC's.

Also it was all combat. There were these vast detailed descriptions, we were listening and taking notes since we expected that to mean something. But it was just a series of easy fights.

I doubt I would consider running this unless it was a bunch of newbies who wanted an intro to combat.

I have no experience so far with the high tier.

Nice comments! If you looks at the tabs near the top, there's a review tab where you can post this same text and even give a star rating; it'll make it more visible.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who, me? Why would you think that simple Rogue Eidolon was a designer or something?

Incidentally, if you'd rather see more on one of these in particular before the end of July, express your preference. That preview blog will have to happen one of these weeks ;)

1 to 50 of 3,572 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.