|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
well that what i loved about the shared prep, you had the map versions without the numbers on them and what not. I am not a good artist, and printing the maps for running saved me hours of drawing work. I wish the purchased PDFs had a print ready version of the module or scenerio maps (without the number on it) included so it could be easily printed out, that would be worth an extra dollar per pdf easy for me. It is what it is i guess
Nitro PDF has an "export images" feature which can get the images out of Paizo PDFs the best out of any program I have used. It retains transparency and usually gets the maps without numbers and secret doors.
I am pretty sure the free version of the program can do the same.
Gol Tigari wrote:
GW already said they don't want ONE settlement to be able to support itself. That goes for training along with resources.
Yes, it always has gone for training. The support idea is what I don't really like, that your character would have to move their affiliation in order to keep using their skills after a certain point. I guess the intent is that someone would have characters in different companies and settlements depending on what types of characters they want to roll.
I kind of get the point, but it seems a little ham-handed and immersion breaking to send all the characters of a certain class packing from their home at a certian level because the settlement cannot support their skill use. On the plus side, it reinforces the importance of supra-national entities which I guess is a good bit of meaningful interaction.
Lee Hammock wrote:
This is the only really worrying thing that I have heard in this thread. I was under the impression that the level of the settlement is when the hyper-specialization would stop. The entire way that larger settlements have come together in the land rush has been predicated on there being specialized companies within the settlement catering to different roles. Is the intention that people should send their characters to different settlements depending on what they want to play? Or is it that some of the larger organizations should expect to need to take several settlements in order to support their community?
I agree. I assumed that the intent of the reputation system is to cut both ways. Beyond the low-rep that everyone is talking about , there should be low-rep good represented by the exact behavior which Nihimon is advocating, wanting to summarily murder any "evildoers" (judged by whatever standard). Which is exactly the kind of behavior which LG characters are not supposed to engage in and which fuels the endless paladin threads we see on the Paizo forums.
I'm going to get myself a really nice wireless gaming headset. Nothing drives me up the wall faster than getting up from my computer and having my headphones yanked off my head.
I was looking at something from Logitech since I have a G700s mouse already and it is lightyears better than the Razer peice of crap I had before. I have yet to do much reasearch on the matter yet though. Any ideas?
John Francis wrote:
Yes, but the DM should not be the "give money to Paizo" police. Practically the rule should never realyl be brought up unless there are unfamiliar rules, or someone is harcore splatbook diving from everywhere. That is the take away message of jsut about every discussion about the additional resources rules.
I am eager to discover who will sack whose cities. I expect that multipolar superpower politics will be a good thing for the map. And I guess new players trying to reach Brighthaven will provide good content for UNC recruits to practice on. I just want to see how it goes.
Hopefully these discoveries will be made amid a bloodbath of biblical proportions.
Saiph the Fallen wrote:
I have read this controversy in the original thread as well as the numerous threads it has infected after the first was locked as a person who recently returned from a long period of not following this particular forum.
From that perspective, WTF is Nihimon doing? He literally seems like a completely different person since I was last posting here. He not only jumped back into the first thread after the original issue had been dealt with and turned it into a referendum on Golgotha's right to exist, but he then brought all of the same b++!@%~# into a completely different thread after the first one was locked. In that regard I see exactly what Morbis is talking about. I think that prolonging drama after it gets locked for being toxic is pretty indefensible. If perception can override reality about Pax's organizations structure, then it can equally paint Nihimon as a grade A ego trying to defend his ideological hegemony rather than a pillar of the community trying to get everyone to be collectively better.
I know that Nihimon is capable of owning his mistakes and misdeeds, and I have seen the leadership of Golgotha do the same already during this whole clusterf##+, so I have no doubt that mutual apologies can be excahanged, but is an apology actually going to end this? I will certainly help, but I don't think that it end things completely at this point. I think that it is related to the emergence of a new power bloc beyond the hegemony of the Roseblood accords rather than anyone's specific alleged misconduct. someone has torn a rift in this community and it is not going to get better until we are killing each other in game. Fortunately that day comes closer as we speak.
Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
I would have agreed that his intentions were obvious right up until the point when he started beating the "Pax is one guild" horse again after Golgotha had rectified the irregular votes. If that were not bad enough I would say that the fact that he moved all the b!+~~+$@ into this thread after the other one was locked moves this beyond community anything and into "crusade" territory.
As far as I am concerned he has lost the ability to say he speaks for the standards of the community, as opposed to just being another ego knocking around these boards while we all wait for the game.
T7V Avari wrote:
Don't worry about that, we'll be able to kill each other soon enough. Over and over and over again.
T7V Avari wrote:
Yep, little did I know...
That's a lie. I totally should have known better.
Gol Tigari wrote:
I just want to see blood and tears failing to extinguish the flaming remains of the high and mighty's hubris.** No promises on how bloody my hands will be. Terms and conditions apply.
If nothing else, this thread has served to illuminate the differences between us.
As someone who has read all 19 pages of this garbage before commenting, I actually have no idea what purpose this thread has served, ever since the point when you jumped back in after Golgotha reverted the votes people felt were improper and turned this into a referendum on Golgotha's right to exist.
I have been on these forums from the beginning and on the Paizo forums since long before that and this is the absolutely most toxic b&+~@*%% I have seen so far. Before I left this community for several months I would have never in a million years guessed that you, Nihimon, would become the sort to perpetuate this crap across multiple threads for over a week.
I gleefully await the carnage that will ensue once everyone gets into the game itself.
Welcome to the start of a long and brutal war.
This is exactly what I alluded to before as a feature rather than a bug. Now that we have an Evil empire, a self-righteously LG hegemony and morally flexible mercenaries as power blocs we are all set for a powder keg of carnage, which is, I assume, exactly what Ryan and GW want going into Alpha and EE.
Do we have any information on the granularity of crafting facilities yet?
Are there different buildings for each step of the crafting process?
Are there vertically integrated facilities for each kind of crafting material? I think that this is the most likely, with forges, mills, etc.
Are there too many different facilities for one modestly-sized settlement to have good development of all of them? I could see how this too is desirable from GW's point of view.
I was a little dismayed to watch that get as out of hand as it did, since on any other section of the Paizo forums that s$@~ would have been locked at the very least when people jumped right back in after the original issue was dealt with, if not long before that.
I think I kind of see Ryan's philosophy about managing the community. I don't think it is the right approach, but I see how it matches the avowed point of GW's design goals. I certainly see it upping the brutality of PvP by a lot, which might be a feature rather than a bug to GW.
I would assume that a lot of the campaign mode play happens in home groups, either as a break from the strictures of PFS, or as a way to wean groups off of PFS.
Obviously that would not be apparent on the collective beyond the threads recruiting for private groups, leaving only the separate play of the evergreen areas apparent as is presumably the case. I see nothing either surprising or wrong with this.
I still don't think that there should be campaign mode for Emerald Spire since it is presumably not actually a campaign any more than Thornkeep is. The model of loosely connected dungeon levels is perfectly tailored for the paradigm of PFS play with discrete adventures for each level like in Thornkeep. I have always assumed that the purpose of campaign mode was to allow groups strongly wedded to PFS play to experience the APs and new modules without slice-and-dicing them up into PFS sized chunks and completely bowdlerizing the story.
I bet that people who play regularly enough to have characters in the 7-11 range wind up spinning off home groups for real campaigns which then take up much of their gaming time. I don't see this as a bad thing though, since arguably part of the purpose of a robust organized play campaign is to strengthen a gaming community to the point where it can support regular home groups.
I'd say no. The bounds of a scenario are very clear, from the briefing until the time when conditions have to be cleared. That is basically the only time which truly happens in a PFS character's life. Everything else is just notional as far as I am concerned. That is not to say that it is completely impossible to "pre-cast" things. Many modules and scenarios have at least a day of travel actually in the scenario and that is the time when you would be able to precast muti-day buffs.
Anything else between scenarios is just nebulous time assumed to be there in order to give PFS the facade of being a persistent campaign and nothing can happen then except for house-ruled things like day jobs and buying off chronicles. The only thing that I can think of which persists between scenarios besides the spells enumerated in the guide is charges in spell-storing items, and that is only because I am pretty sure that I remember a specific ruling by Mike about it.
Arthurian knights are the definition of LG. And they are supposed to be emulating Jesus, so I would say that Jesus would then be LG.
That is ridiculous. They emulated the then current interpretation of what Jesus did, removed from the man himself by over a millennium not to mention a vast gap of cultural context.
Jesus actually came from a tradition of apocalyptic preachers and prophets. He associated himself with marginalized members of society and turned aspects of traditional social order upside down. That sounds to me like a chaotic good attitude of being perfectly fine with tossing out rules which contribute to marginalizing certain members of society while still being fine with the rules which constructively add to society.
Now something on topic though. Being able to toss out rules which do not serve their purpose or are otherwise objectionable with no compunctions is the essence of a chaotic alignment. Civil disobedience is a quintessentially chaotic act because it revolves around purposefully disobeying the law to make a point. The difference between CG, CN and CE is why they each would find a law objectionable. CG would find a law or custom objectionable if it is unjust. CN would think something is objectionable if it were unjust, but also if it were just out of keeping with contemporary attitudes or even if it benefits a group of people they don't like. CE would find something objectionable because f*@~ you is why.
Lawful alignments would not be ok with tossing out a law entirely. They would instead try to amend or repeal it through the accepted process. A lawful person would rather write a letter to their congressman than protest something. LG wants the same standards of justice that CG does, they just think that CG cases too much collateral grief to society in the process of attaining that justice.
The one thing which LG heroes have trouble fighting is entrenched and unjust social mores and laws, such as those in a LE but stable and functional society.
You can absolutely hand someone a 1st level character for them to play. Are you trying to argue that someone can only play characters that they themselves roll up?
This cannot possibly be the intended purpose of the rule you are citing, which exists mostly to keep people from jumping into high-level games with characters they have just rolled up at the right level.
The etymological implications of the Chinese word for Africa do not help either. In Chinese, Africa is 非洲 (Feizhou). Where 洲 just means continent, but 非 literally means "wrong" or "to blame". So in Chinese, Africa literally can be parsed as "Bad/Wrong Continent". It does not actually mean that since it is one word and not just two characters and the word was actually coined to echo the sound of "Africa", but 非 as a character or radical has negative connotations since it is both a grammatical negator and sounds like and appears as a component of characters like 菲 (poor; unworthy), 匪 (bandit; robber)， 罪 (crime; guilt) and 䨿 (evil; wicked). I remember being really taken aback when I learned this in China.
I kind of wonder to what extent the coining of this word was influenced by Western attitudes of the 18th and 19th centuries and/or to what extent it unconsciously shapes Chinese attitudes today.
Sorry that is kind of off-topic, but language definitely shapes the way that people think about things.
This still leaves the question of what to do if your Animal Companion is not an animal, such as with Celestial Servant.
By RAW I am all but certain that as a Magical Beast, once it has INT 3+ it is not bound by the Handle Animal rules. However I know that PFS house rules animal companions and familiars very heavily so in PFS does requiring Handle Animal trigger off of a creature's intelligence and type like by RAW or does it trigger off of the creature being granted by the Animal Companion class feature even if that creature is intelligent and not an animal? I suspect that in PFS it is the latter since that seems to fit with all the other changes PFS makes to Animal Companions.
Deane Beman wrote:
Running a single game for either of the official PbP game days would earn a racial boon without ever having to leave the house or spending a dime.
I just want to point out that non-standerd races are not nearly the source of problems that they used to be now that we have online events. Even if you don't get a race boon, you can head over to the boon trading thread and the community is usually prepared to be generous.
There are no clerics of an ideal in Golarion last time I checked, and the pantheistic clerics had been reconned out. The reason given is that otherwise it would not make any sense from a setting standpoint that the priests of Razmir had to fake their divine magic. So that ruling at least makes sense and kind of needs to exist logically.
The paladin thing is a PFS rule, probably intended to stop things like the infamous paladin of Pharasma. Specifically the arguments about said paladin.
I'm just wondering if this actually Golarion cannon like the must worship one and only one deity to get divine spells ruling, or just a PFS house rule?
Does this new atonement rule now cover all alignment changes in PFS, or only changes of what deity you worship? I assume it also applies if you are going from having no god to choosing your one god you can worship.
That still does not invalidate all the rest of the wand use rules. It just restates that a familiar uses their master's skill ranks which is already the rule by RAW.
With your reading a faerie dragon can use a staff but not a wand which is just weird and obviously not RAI by either RAW or PFS house rules.
Going forward though, your character will need to worship Desna.
Do the house rules about one-alignment step for classes who don't get their power from a god apply in this case?
I assume that they do since it is just another example of a deity specific restriction. I still find it amusing that you apparently get bounced out of church for being the wrong alignment in PFS.
I would expect to be able to do it, even in PFS.
The bit about using their master's UMD does not override all the other rules about wand use, such as not having to UMD if you are a spellcaster. I can't really see the idea that the house rule overrides all of the RAW wand use rules as a valid reading of the PFS guide.
You think, but again, there doesn't have to be. You actually write suggestions for domains and a favored weapon without being so heavy handed about it.
I'm not sure what you are objecting to as heavy-handed. Do you mean the fact that different gods are mechanically differentiated to give bonuses and which match their flavor, or is there an aspect here that I am missing?
There should be in a good campaign setting. Having a theme by definition means that there is a defined difference between on theme and off theme. The mechanical incentives need to be there to ensure that the theme stays mechanically viable for NPC and/or players who choose to play the trope straight.
It's not like it is impossible to build off-type either mechanically or even in flavor but there has to be some sort of flavor-mechanical guidance for those who are Golarion neophytes.
Yeah, there's a balancing aspect there, too, with some bad weapons going with good Domains and the like (Desna has great Domains and a bad weapon, for example). I'm not sure how systematized that is, but it's a factor.
Part of it is to help cleric builds match the flavor of the god rather than pure balance. Iomedae and Gorum for example have both perfectly good weapons and also good domains to encourage more martial cleric builds. Nobody cares about Nethys' weapon because his clericsmake more sense casting spells anyway. Sarenrae gets the scimitar as well as the feat that makes DEX-fighters viable because Dexterity based characters make sense for the desert-themed goddess of fire ("when they fight they dance like the very flames of the Dawnflower" or something along those lines).
That is the metagame intention that I was talking about before in terms of builds and character archetypes (not literally archetypes but the actual sense of the word).
A deities favored weapon is an aspect of that deity and is both an insight into what is important to the deity. It's not meant to be a metagame decision.
Yes it is. The mechanical differences between gods, including their favored weapons exist in order to differentiate clerics of different gods mechanically and make them play differently. Also for pure balance concerns. That is a feature and absolutely is a metagame concern as is anything which helps a player decide "what kind" or character they want to play.
Copy/paste sometimes does not work, since there is sometimes a transparent or mostly transparent image overlayed over the map itself in the pdf as part of the layout.
The export images feature in Nitro PDF works in every situation I have run across in a Paizo pdf. It also gets images with transparency like NPC headshots out of the pdf without the black mess of a background.