|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I still think that the correct solution to the problems with the "tech obfuscation" rules would have been to add a boon to the chronicle of each scenario involving tech which basically gives the benefits of Technologist. That way you would have been able to simulate the way that tech would interact in a real campaign, where the characters would presumably become familiar with it after encountering it.
Please put that text about Technologist in a sidebar next to every use of Numerian tech in a scenario, and emphasize the fact that characters should still have a way to succeed at the mission. Otherwise we are going to get all sorts of table variation and nonsense about metagaming whenever tech appears in a scenario.
You have to fill out the paperwork before you die if you plan to be reincarnated.
Just file these 17 pages with the Bureau of Religious Affairs and don't forget to get a notarization from your local police station. Then your application will be forwarded to the central government for approval...
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Fortunately in a world with magic there are even better ways to get information out of someone which theoretically always produce true information. They would not even need the psychological manipulation of modern interrogation methods. The best magical solution would probably just be to charm or dominate someone and then ask them. Paired with modify memory they won't even know they had been interrogated.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
"Lawful Good is the best alignment because it combined honor with compassion. Also if someone gets in your way and they are wrong, you can torture or beat them until they give into your demands."
I have always had the above mentioned method of dominate/ask be the LG enhanced interrogation technique of choice. It is humane, quick, effective and does not violate anyone's alignment based codes of conduct. The only drawback is that it requires a relatively high level spellcaster, but in an emergency charm person would probably work pretty well too.
Pirate Rob wrote:
I believe it's the same elemental boons as last year.
It is not a rotating selection from the races on the Gencon DM boon? That would be disappointing if they didn't follow that precedent.
It is not as vital this year I guess since they did just rotate the open races to give 7 non-core choices that it is relatively easy to get your hands on.
Finlanderboy is on the right track. What DMs should not try to do is use pedantic readings (and misinterpretations of the rules) to tear down a player's character when the entire purpose of the game is to be a fun social activity.
I too am very disappointed to see long time 5-star DMs in this thread going against the spirit and precedent of the rebuild rule, which as far as I can tell is to allow players to salvage character broken by rule changes. And seeing this now I am glad that I purposefully did not play any playtest classes above 1st level.
I think that the 3/4 prestige success fact is used far to glibly around here. The point of secondary success conditions I think is to get characters to act more like pathfinders are supposed to in-world; not hyper-specializing and not wantonly murder-hoboing, rather than to be some kind of precisely calibrated expectation of failure.
That has no bearing on the fact that gating vital plot information/cool lore/the best bits of content behind skill checks that the vast majority of characters would be expected to fail is pretty much universally recognized as bad adventure writing.
Again the Technologist feat is a pretty cool idea for a long-term campaign with a persistent story, but in an organized play environment it does not really work out, especially when the rule in question is buried in a splatbook.
So for PFS purposes either the "technology obfuscation" rule should be rethought, or at the very least put the benefits of the Technologist feat on the Chronicle for each scenario containing Numerian tech to simulate the character encountering then learning about the tech the best that can be done in the non-persistent context of PFS play.
I am honestly disappointed after reading this thread, mostly because of two specific problems not with the rule itself, but with the way it interacts with organized play rules and adventures.
I actually kind of like the rule and it is a perfect way to make a nod to the collision of genres in a homebrew campaign and also presumably in Iron Gods, which I have not had a chance to read yet.
The place where PFS seems to have dropped the ball on this is from both a complication of the existence of "Additional Resources" as well as from the perspective of good adventure writing from what I have heard of 6-02 especially.
The Additional Resources problem is somewhat similar to what was faced with the Animal Archive, where rules which are not core assumption lessen the effectiveness of someone's character and you basically have to buy the book to get back to where you were before. Admittedly this problem stems from the fact that PFS is organized play and cannot really be solved.
The adventure design problem comes from the issue of gating necessary information or even the best bits of flavor behind difficult or impossible skill checks. If it is indeed true like I have read in a few posts that the secondary success condition all but relies on a knowledge check about something technological then it is a perfect illustration of this kind of bad adventure plotting. This is a problem which can be solved by being careful in development.
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.