|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Erik Mona wrote:
They are $5 each. Do you ask her before you order a grande latte? ;)
For the cost of a cup of coffee, you could adopt a Pathfinder Minimate. For the cost of a cup of coffee a day, you could adopt them all.
Question about Squealy Nord: Will the base just say pig, or will this be the 100% official Squealy Nord Pathinder Battles miniature?
This was my first encounter with a babau ever. My staff magus was the only one in the party with darkvision, but I was having trouble hitting at first. I had to keep spell recalling true strike just to make sure I hit, because we could not afford to miss it two rounds in a row.
When babaus started showing up in multiples and in mooks all season 5, I kept getting flashbacks to Day of the Demon. Even now that my staff magus is close to retirement and has dropped babaus in a single round, I get nervous when one shows up. I know the damage those slimy demons can do.
As for how you handled it, Slacker, I understand your need to justify. I don't like killing PCs, but I also know as a player I don't like when GMs pull punches. I'll only pull punches for a round or two if a player has shown they just don't enjoy the numbers side of the game and wouldn't know how tripped up a character can be if they are unprepared for
Spoiler:; or if they are trying to escape.
darkness, swarms, or DR
Erik Mona announced 12 exclusive Pathfinder Minimates available at GenCon. They're going to be all over the con, and the city, so if Minimates are your thing, you are going to have a lot of leg work ahead of you. There would be one exclusive to Scotty's Brewery, another exclusive to another restaurant, one you would need to score a critical hit at the PFS treasure chest. He also went into a few details about the different exclusive Minimates: there will be a Razmiran priest, a Licktoad tribe goblin, and KonKrud, the sickly goblin that was a con exclusive last PaizoCon.
There seem to be a few season 5 mods where the writers are trying to TPK the players in the first round. "Elven Entanglement" certainly rises to the top of the septic tank.
As the writer of that scenario and a GM who has seen PCs beat that encounter in one round on two occasions, I assure you the goal was not a TPK. The goal was a good time. It's kind of a bummer to hear so many players didn't get past that encounter in the scenario, especially when there are pretty regular "encounters are too easy" threads, like this one.
Not presumptuous, but our mentioning it will have to wait until after the interview. John's time is precious and I predict a lot of questions in the hour or so we have him.
Benjamin Falk wrote:
That´s my experience here, i didn´t have 12 foes often yet though. And if so, they most always were cleaved or AoOéd by a twohander quite fast.
12 foes, no, but I was talking about total combatants. Assuming 6 PCs with at least 1 animal companion, that means you only need 5 NPCs for the combat to reach 12 combatants.
The different ways we've been communicating this actually provides insight into why you might prefer your style and why I prefer mine. If I may, you've been talking like there are two parts to every turn: 1. GM; 2. PC. I see combat as every character for itself. So in the case I was making, with 7 PCs (including an animal companion) and 5 NPCs, I don't see how any one player is waiting any longer for their turn if all 5 NPCs go together or they're mixed erratically amongst the 12 combatants.
Benjamin Falk wrote:
Yeah the thing is, group initiative especially for the GM does make things faster, the GM get´s less talking and ends his "turn" faster, so the players have to wait less and feel like the can do more.
Strange, I don't see how that would work. If there are 12 combatants, Player A still has to wait for 11 other characters to go before getting a turn, regardless of how many of those combatants are NPCs. And like I said earlier, when I've played with GMs who clump initiative, the first player to go after a clump takes so much longer because the battlefield has changed drastically. The more a GM clumps, the harder it is for the player after the GM to be ready their following turn.
I would prefer if I never played at a table with clumped initiative ever again, for two reasons:
1. It makes player turns slower;
2. It hurts the fun:
One of my favourite things about the D20 system is that storytelling and dramatic tropes can go out the window with an unexpected die roll. Take away a die roll, you take away an opportunity for a unique storytelling moment.
I love the idea of an android savant, Iammars. I picture this emotionless machine that can mimic emotions and humanoid flaws by breaking them down into computable equations.
Steve Danials wrote:
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
I'm a little confused; I have a fellow player playing a Savant in a game we started back several months and it looks to be significantly different than what I'm seeing in this book (a book I enjoy by the way). Why would the class have been so significantly changed between one full publishing (he purchased the class via pdf and it wasn't a playtest version from what I understand) and another?
The savant went on a long from pitch to New Paths Compendium. I pitched it as the coffer, the Pathfinder answer to the transforming everyman type (The Hulk, He-Man, Shazam). After a little back-and-forth over my first draft, I submit a new version called the raconteur, which was a storyteller whose stories came to life on the battlefield, like a war holophonor, or obscure X-villain Tarot. By the time it saw print, it had evolved further into a generalist class called the savant. I think the savant as it appeared in Kobold Quarterly #19 was great merchanically and I know it was popular among readers, I just always felt the flavour had a bit too much raconteur peaking out of the seems. Also, many of the class features' new names were either implicit of another established mechanic through naming conventions (wild talent), or shared a name with another mechanic (role). There were also a lot of areas that needed clarifying, like how long a savant's calming words lasted. When I was approached the savant appearing in the New Paths Companion, I saw it as a great opportunity to clean up the murkier areas of the class. So while the class may read quite differently, most of the mechanics are intact. One change I'll admit is significant is dropping the savant's choice of style. This change came about late in the production process, otherwise I would have thrown together a savant archetype (probably called a raconteur) keyed to Charisma.
Short answer: The old savant still works, the new savant works just as well but looks better.
I do NOT want people rolling all their attacks at once.
I feel the same way about rolling attack with damage. This whole consent that rolling all your dice at once saves so much time baffles me. I play warriors almost exclusively, and my average turn is much shorter than any caster's average turn, even with me rolling my attacks then rolling my damage.
However, I know that many GMs prefer their players roll all at once. So, as a favour to the GM, I try to bring up my desire to roll in dramatic order before the scenario starts. If they say no, sucks to be me, I'm rolling a mess of dice together. If I fail to bring it up before and the GM asks me to roll all at once, I'll at most ask "do I have to?" and go with the GM's ruling.
Basically, if you as a player have a play style preference that goes against a generally accepted way of playing (we're talking a preference, not a house rule), it's best to bring it up early, and listen to the GM's call.
You're reading too much into it. Anytime she refers to "the elves", it's whatever elves are the subject of the sentence. If you find it sounds odd, just replace it with we or they, as applicable.
The boss in the high subtier should have a 19-20 threat range on that weapon, you are correct.
Amazon notoriously lists items as soon as they are in their system, regardless of any orders not to do so. It's a pain for publishers, but there's no fighting Amazon.
Given that the next Adventure Path takes place in Numeria, both of these books fit the next year's theme. We just have to wait until Paizo announces them to find out more.
Okay, I can put down all the flags that this thread's title raised, I think you've presented a reasonable point in a reasonable way.
This is an interesting observation. My groups don't tell to pursue many romances during a campaign, and when they do it tends to be inter-PC. We have seen an increase in romance in Kingmaker, though, which makes sense for the plot. We've seen two romances, both heterosexual between a female PC and a male NPC. One NPC was from the adventure, one the GM invented. I suspect Kingmaker may be above average in this regard as the campaign takes years in-game and so relationships are more likely. Come to think of it, the GM may have swapped preference on the NPC from the book for all I know.
What are your thoughts between a proactive representation of LGBTIQ persons and providing options for any romance in an adventure path?