|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Andrew Shumate wrote:
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.
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.
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:
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).
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.
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!
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).
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.
Mark Stratton wrote:
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.
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:
This is because they don't have anything to choose, so they also have no drawback for it being the same spirit.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Chris Mortika wrote:
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.
That's a hilarious metaphor, and it seems pretty apt to me. There's a reason the fey call her "Reckless Rhona."
Landon Winkler wrote:
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:
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!
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:
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.
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.
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.
Jason Nelson wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
DM Beckett wrote:
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! :)
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.
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.
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:
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!
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.
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!
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!
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.