Eriniell

Sammy T's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,312 posts (1,628 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Organized Play characters. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Reinald, the Dirty Fighting feat takes care of that.

Nicholas, I decided to forgo the Kitsune line. I think this character is stalled around L4 or so...been GMing a lot and playing my grandfathered Wiz 2/Cleric 1/Mystic Theurge X recently.

Shadow Lodge ***

My CN worshipper of Rovagug worked well in PFS parties because I crafted a specific POV and personality for him that allowed for him to work for PFS yet be true to Rovagug. Also, he constantly courted converts during combat due to the PCs' obvious talents for destruction and bloodshed 3-4 times a scenario.

Shadow Lodge

Just an idle thought every time I see item quality referenced, I kind of wish that instead of:

Poor, Standard, Expert, Master, Legendary

It went:

Poor, Basic, Expert, Master, Legendary

If only for the three middle levels as a light reference to the D&D BECMI boxed sets. Such a weird and minor thing to think about, but every time I hear "Expert" and "Master" I keep flashing back to those classic box covers.

Shadow Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?

Wow, so much to dissect in that sentence.

Shadow Lodge ***

Not much is developed for high level play because the demand isn’t there. This thread is from 2014 is relevant because it shows PFS uses reporting to help determine what they develop. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the same same pyramid of PFS-specific scenario availability — lots of low tier, decent amount of mid-tier, some high-tier and very limited Seeker-level support supplemented by sanctioned mods/APs.

Also, I’m flagging this to be moved to the PFS playtest forum so it might get a little more discussion by PFS peeps.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Major reasons why PFS wouldn’t divert limited resources to fully support high-level play:

1) Investment of resources vs interest: It’s been stated by campaign leadership that the vast majority of reported campaign play is in the lower levels with a significant drop-off once you hit seeker-level play. It takes more effort to build a higher level scenario that’s balanced...and would only see play by a very limited subset of players.

2) High level encounters can take longer: This is a PF1-specific observation as we haven’t seen the PF2 system in action yet, but with the swingy, rocket tag nature of high-level play, one group’s ROFLstomp is another group’s dragged out near-TPK. Yes, you can see this at low levels, but at high levels there are so many abilities, spells and counters that things can slow down to a crawl...but when you have the requisite 3-4 encounters in a game store where time may be at a premium, it can be problematical.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What levels are your other PFS characters? Because as some of the other posters have pointed out, a skill monkey that cannot contribute effectively in combat is basically handicapping the party and putting them at a disadvantage.

The thing about PFS is that almost any character concept can "work" through L5--the early tier scenarios are (generally) very forgiving. After L5, when PCs are expected more and more to pull their own weight, "support" or "skill monkey" builds can be problematical when they can't contribute meaningfully in combat. After L9, if you can't contribute in combat, everyone else has to work to make up for you.

Now imagine if your character was the 5th person, kicking the scenario from the 4-person to the 6-person adjustment--can your character contribute enough to counter that adjustment? Otherwise it's basically a 4-person party taking on an encounter balanced for 6 people.

Right now, your character dips THREE 3/4 BAB classes and has 10s in STR and DEX. So, martial prowess is not your forte. You have an INT of 20...but your main spell progression (bard) is CHA-based--so offensive spells due to low DCs are off the table.

You are going to get 3-4 combat encounters per PFS scenario--some can be avoided, some can't. What can you do when it can't be avoided? Every character should have a main option in combat, a back up option in combat and an out-of-combat role. While your OOC role is clear, your in-combat abilities are severely lacking.

Shadow Lodge

The issue of free and swift actions while Nauseated came up previously and was FAQ'd:

Quote:


Nauseated and Actions: Does the nauseated condition really mean what it says when it says “The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn” or does it just mean I can’t take a standard action?

The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.”

So, Nauseated condition would prevent the character from using the free attempt to escape the grapple when placed in a hazardous square.

Shadow Lodge ***

Heads up: the convention table accidentally re-lists the conventions from the top of the table.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Brie Sheldon once blogged about the problematic origins of Half-Orcs and corresponded with Paizo's former Editor-in-Chief F. Wesley Schneider and Creative Director James Jacobs.

You can see Wes' original e-mails in the blog post and much lengthier follow-ups in the comments. While the back-and-forth exchanges are primarily concerned with Half-Orcs, you can absolutely see how this would apply to Goblins in PF2.

While here are some selected excerpts, I suggest reading the blog/comments for the full comments and more context...but you can see how it struck me in relation to Goblins.

James wrote:
First, regarding half-orcs… the direction we took with them in their racial description is one we went back and forth over, and in the end we decided to go with the darker, grittier version. Golarion (and Pathfinder) often skews toward mature topics, and while we did tone down the language a bit for half-orcs, retaining their brutal and depressing origins was important to us. Certainly not ALL half-orcs are the product of orcs raping humans, but orcs ARE intended to be evil creatures in Pathfinder, and that’s one way to ensure that point comes across. Especially when there are other very popular game worlds where orcs are presented almost as the good guys. In the end, each and every player gets to choose how his player came to be, and in this case, having a half-orc PC whose parents were loving is a great way to set that character apart from the histories of most half-orcs.
Wes wrote:
Ultimately, despite many of us having strong personal reactions toward and opinions about elements of our campaign setting, we felt that it was important to include them, taking our setting from the PG status of many games to something closer to PG-13 or even a hard R. It’s our philosophy that facing such elements, including them in our game, and treating them with the gravitas such serious and often personal topics deserve is far preferable to pretending they don’t exist. This is a position that will lose us book sales and will turn off some customers. We know that, and ultimately that is each consumer’s decision. I certainly would not let my 10 year old nephew loose in a library of our works without context and guidance. But Pathfinder is also a game about choices. The game works just as well without halflings, rangers, and lizardfolk as it does with them. So if there’s any element a GM doesn’t want at her game table, the game is entirely hers to customize, and I believe the stronger for it.
Wes wrote:

That’s what excited me so much about Brie’s emails, article, and the discussion I hope will follow. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game’s pedigree stretches back not just through decades of roleplaying games but through more than a century of fiction. In the context of such a tradition change is sometimes revolutionary, but more often it’s evolutionary. In the case of the half-orc, we didn’t want to be subtractive in our updates to the 3.5 rules set, and in including them in our rules and stories hearkened to a tradition I suspect started with Tolkien’s Uruk-hai and had been propagated through roleplaying games since some of their earliest days. The creators of those early games, the sensibilities of those times, and the players of those games are not the creators, sensibilities, and players of today, though. Our inclusion of half-orcs in Pathfinder erred on the side of tradition, but there’s obviously work to be done. You can read my thoughts and accounting of our thinking on half-orcs above, but I hope everyone views that for what it is: a starting point.

Personally, I think it’s time half-orcs evolved as a race beyond their stereotypes and assumptions. I think they could be excised and replaced with another race that better satisfies players who want to play “monsters.” Alternatively, this race has seen almost a century of development—maybe it’s time to take them back either in the direction of more mystical origins or for world builders to start acknowledging that yes, humans and orcs can interbreed and the result has led to half-orc communities that present a healthier environment for all members to flourish. That’s doesn’t have to be a “good” society, for folks who like their orcs evil and half-orcs taboo, but it could be a more balanced culture, bringing the focus of what makes a half-orc exceptional back around to their alignment, and not just racism and tragic origins.

Wes wrote:
Making major changes to races thoroughly established in our world’s continuity is more difficult, though. Saying that there’s one moon today then saying there’s two moons the next is going to raise a lot of eyebrows. With something established, there needs to be logical additions or evolutions. With orcs, maybe those of a lot of areas are crazy–damaged by their exposure to the deepest of Darklands radiations–but maybe that’s not the case all over. That’s a bit tricky considering how strongly so many players feel about orcs, but I don’t think it’s undoable. Half-orcs are easier, though, and I think more discussions about the race of a child born of half-orc parents (or a half-orc and human) will be coming up in the near future. My take is such children will be half-orc (we are NOT going the route of decreasing percentages when it comes to half-races), giving that entire race much more potential to know and not hate their parents. There’s definitely room in the stories we tell for whole communities of half-orcs seeking the comfort of their own kind, though I can’t say quite yet what shape something like this might take as our published works. Ultimately, though, we built the Pathfinder campaign setting to be a place where players can indulge any type of game they want. That’s why we have a viking-themed country, a necromancer’s paradise, an Egyptian-styled region, gothic horror land, Conan-land, knight country, and tons more all on the same map. If we’ve got room for all that, we’ve got room for happy half-orc families and the occasional good-aligned orcs. With additions like that, including the comparatively dull rainbow of human variation should be a breeze, but we always need to know what we’ve missed, so keep letting us know!
Wes wrote:
I have a half-formed theory here about racial backgrounds and whether PCs embrace them as part of their characters or seek to be exceptions. Like, you certainly get plenty of elves that grew up as elves in Elfland, but far fewer half-orcs or drow who grew up as exemplars of their race. That might have a lot to do with those being less than typical heroic races, but subject matter might factor into some decision as well. Needs more data.

Shadow Lodge

Evilserran wrote:
In our local PFS chapter, if you succeed at the spell DC you can spellcraft the "tingle" you felt. If you dont have spellcraft, oh well, if you fail, oh well. Visibility is irrelevant, though if you make it you will now be paranoid looking for invis casters.

Yeah, that’s not RAW.

Shadow Lodge ***

I'm sitting on a lot of unused boons. Again, I'm all for a fresh start...but I would absolutely support Option 4: Boons for Benefits--but only if they were communal for the entire table and only one boon total could be burned (i.e. only one player could contribute their boon). I'd be more than glad to burn an old Boon to grant 1 floating re-roll to the entire table to be used by anyone at the table, 1 floating point of resonance, or other team-based benefits that don't skew the game too much in the players' favor.

Shadow Lodge ***

New rules and new system? Fresh start. However, I have no problem with a subsidized system as outlined in Option 2.

Shadow Lodge ***

GM STARS
New rules and new system? Fresh start. However, I have no problem with a subsidized system as outlined in Option 2.

CHARACTER REBUILDS
New rules and new system? Fresh start. In fact, while I look forward to creating new characters and forging new adventures, I'm sure when PF2 materials support more options I'll recreate my PF1 favorites and will want to play them from L1.

BOONS
I'm sitting on a lot of unused boons. Again, I'm all for a fresh start...but I would absolutely support Option 4: Boons for Benefits--but only if they were communal for the entire table and only one boon total could be burned (i.e. only one player could contribute their boon). I'd be more than glad to burn an old Boon to grant 1 floating re-roll to the entire table to be used by anyone at the table, 1 floating point of resonance, or other team-based benefits that don't skew the game too much in the players' favor.

PF1 REPLAY
I'd be fine with unlimited replay in PF1 when PF2 launches because support for PF1 will stop (be phased out?). Option 2 with a favored character seems like a fine compromise.

PLAYTEST
Works for me--but I hope you open up the prize table to consideration before you lock it in.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

QA and production issues aside, with the proliferation of online play, does the online domain become its own “region”? What if every one is physically in the same region (let’s say the Great Lakes) but play online—can they play GL exclusive scenarios or are they limited to online region exclusive scenarios?

Honestly, it’s enough of a bummer that certain scenarios require being at a Con or can only be run by someone with X amount of stars. Adding regions is not personally enticing to me as a GM or player.

Shadow Lodge ***

Perhaps you should post in the PFS PLAYTEST forum ;)

Shadow Lodge

Whoops! Flagging to be moved over PF rules forum.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As PF2 takes more developer bandwidth with the impending playtest this year and subsequent launch next year, what lingering rules issues do you wish the developers would FAQ/Errata for PF1 before they turn their full attention to PF2?

Shadow Lodge

Pizza Lord wrote:
2) You are under greater invisibility and you cast ill omen: If there's something that the target can observe (in this example, that likely means 'hear', if you have verbal components), then they receive a Spellcraft to identify the spell you are casting.

You have to be able to see the spell to Spellcraft it. Hearing the verbal components alone does not work.

Quote:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Shadow Lodge

As a special ability it still needs line of effect but not line of sight (per the ability).

1. No

2. Yes

3. Expect table variation, but I feel that would fall under the same purview of the DC 20 Concentration check when blinded

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

D20PFSRD released their official character survey results, which includes a section on archetypes. (Google Drive PDF link)

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

SPECIFIC ARCHETYPES

Barbarian - Urban: More control over your rage. (sidenote: Invulnerable Rager should be baked into base class IMHO)

Bard - Archaeologist: Selfish-style bard done right.

Fighter - "Classic" Lore Warden: A Dex/Int combatant based around maneuvers and knowledge.

Druid - Goliath: Becoming a giant defender of nature is fun.

Monk - Tetori: Who needs magic when you can bodyslam a baddie to death.

GENERAL ARCHETYPES:
If PF2 is creating general archetypes that any class can take, I always looked for these kinds of archetypes:

An Inspiring Archetype: Exemplar Brawler, Sensei Monk, Evangelist Cleric, Freebooter Ranger, etc. You have the ability to be a team player without being locked into being a bard.

A Maneuver Archetype: Maneuver Master/Tetori/Underfoot Adept Monk, Brutal Pugilist/Untamed Rager Barbarian, Bounty Hunter Slayer, Cad/Lorewarden Fighter, etc. Whether you want to be the master of one technique or many maneuvers, having the ability to successfully use maneuvers regularly brings options to your base kit.

A Supplementary Healing Archetype: Either adding healing spells to an arcane list or bolstering the (meager) options already present, this kind of archetype is always welcome in a party for someone who doesn't want to be a primary healer but can heal in a pinch.

A Mobile Combatant Archetype: Scout Rogue/Mobile Fighter/Dervish/etc trading out armor/weapon proficiencies for more movement and special bonuses to attacks when moving changes up the style of combat and tactical decisions you would usually make in combat.

Shadow Lodge ***

Dang. No Verdant Grappler.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:


Taking 10 requires more explicit and defined rules and a GM willing to allow them - Hell, I've been in PFS games and been told not to Take 10 because it "isn't fun" and "any badly failed diplomacy can result in combat so you're always in danger"

That’s bad GMing right there

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
I mean I want to play Car Wars

Well, come on down to Uncle Al's The Duelist's Pal!

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:
You know, now that Goblins are a core race, basically puts an end to the "We Be Goblins" series.

Get ready for "Kobold and the brave" series.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:
It's not like we have any mods that are centered around all-dwarf pregens.

All Harsk pre-gen run incoming...

Shadow Lodge

I don't think all feat chains are bad but some feat chains should be a single feat with inherent scaling (i.e. vital strike). Related: There are definitely certain feats that should be baseline combat options available to all characters (power attack and deadly aim for example) rather than a feat IMHO.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know navigating the introduction of goblins into PFS will be a bit tricky to navigate, but something that might help is an evergreen scenario or mod (or perhaps a series of intro quests) that dive a bit deeper into the lore of the rehabilitation of certain sects of goblins and their induction into PFS.

Shadow Lodge

I hope rules language and game terms are standardized across PF2e. A significant chunk of rules questions in 1e were from language and terms not being consistently applied the product line.

I don't have the link right now, but I remember a discussion where someone from Paizo noted the desire/need to balance the readability and accessibility of the rules vs standardized terms. (And, yes, these are not mutually exclusive.)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zarius wrote:

Sure, at level 9. But this guy is a brawler-barbarian. FoM suppression will never be on his list of abilities.

That’s what Spell Sunder (available at L6) is for.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

6.

Quote:

They may never retain more than ten magic items; these may

never exceed:
armor, 1 (suit)
shield, 1
weapons*, 4
any other magic items, 4

7.

Quote:

They will never retain wealth, keeping only sufficient

treasures to support themselves in a modest manner, pay
henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors, and to construct or
maintain a small castle. (Your DM will give details of this as
necessary.) Excess is given away, as is the tithe (see 3. below).

8.

Quote:

An immediate tithe (10%) of all income - be it treasure,

wages, or whatever - must be given to whatever charitable
religious institution (not a clerical player character) of lawful
good alignment the paladin selects.

And now...from 1e PHB to 1e Unearthed Arcana when Paladins moved from being a subclass of fighter to cavalier

9.

Quote:
Paladins must initially be of the correct social station, or be sponsored by local nobility. In the latter case, the paladin must advance through Horseman and Lancer “0 levels” before gaining paladin abilities.

10.

Quote:
A paladin, as a sub-class of the cavalier, no longer has a prime requisite ability and does not gain an experience bonus for exceptional ability scores.

Skimming 2e, it looks like human-only, LG, 10 magic items, tithing, and wealth restrictions still applied.

I honestly would be fine if Paladins were simply religious warriors of any alignment, which their abilities would then reflect (Chaotic Good paladins would get Smite Evil/Law, etc). I'd be fine with even "only good alignments" as that would complement the Monk's "only lawful"; the Barbarian's "any non-lawful"; and the Druid's "any neutral".

Shadow Lodge

Saldiven wrote:
Aren't Butterfly Swords 1d4 base? So, it would go to 1d6 at 3rd and 1d8 at ninth?

You are 100% correct—I thought it was base d6 for some reason

Shadow Lodge

Butterfly Blade Slayer

Haven't seen much discussion about this archetype for the Slayer. I'm most interest in discussion of PFS level play (up to L12), but I interested in any thoughts.

Pros: From L1 can use Studied Target for Intimidate, can choose Enforcer/Intimidating Prowess as Talents, can do nonlethal with butterfly blades, bonus +hit and damage dice progression with butterfly blades, gains Brawler's knock out.

Cons: Loses Slayer's reduced Sneak Attack progression, quarry, tracking abilities

What interests me is that by taking Ranger 2WF combat style, going STR and avoiding the DEX pre-reqs, you become a pretty mean 2WF combatant who doesn't really worry about that loss of Sneak Attack.

L1 +0 hit with Butterfly 1d6 (19-20)

L3 untyped +1 hit with Butterfly Blade (1d8/19-20) -- 2d6 if Enlarged

(Assume Improved Critical taken at L8)

L9 untyped +2 hit with Butterfly Blade (2d6/17-20) -- 3d6 if Enlarged

So, at level 9 you are basically ITWFing with a pair of Improved Critical Greatswords with no TWF penalty. If you can regularly Enlarge from L3-L8, you do so with only a -1 penalty. This is before you factor in Studied Target.

Depending on how you want to spend your feats/talents, you can go Enforcer/Intimidating Prowess and then consider Killing Flourish/Gruesome Display to make the most of your high Intimidate skill.

Your AC will be average and your Will save will need bolstering (either Iron Will or 1/2 Orc w/ Sacred Tattoo & Fate's Favored).

Thoughts on if I'm missing something obviously bad about this archetype?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm assuming your barbarian has invested in all the usual anti-dominate/charm magic items.

Pre-emptively, if you think you're going to run into someone who will cast dominate person, you can pre-emptively cast dominate person on your barbarian with the command to "act as you normally would"--if he should somehow fail his dominate save against an enemy caster, then...

Quote:

Multiple Mental Control Effects

Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject’s ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

As Witch, I'm guessing your CHA isn't that great.

The other option is using Dispel Magic on the dominate person (which is a caster level check, so the barbarian's saves don't factor in)--but first and foremost, you want to put distance between you and a raging, pouncing barbarian and cast dispel from range...because if you fail that check and your his target, bye bye.

Shadow Lodge ***

As a 5-star GM you've never encountered this before?

Shadow Lodge

shaventalz wrote:
The PRD agrees with you. Huh. Checking the errata docs, it looks like that was changed with the 6th printing of the CRB.

Yeah, you can see Jason Buhlman's 2010 posts on this matter here and here.

Shadow Lodge

You can cast spells with somatic components while having the grappled condition; you cannot while having the pinned condition. This was updated a while ago.

Shadow Lodge

Slyme wrote:
With the Shield Slam feat, any time you bash something with your shield you get a free Bull Rush on them. Combine that with 2 levels of Siegebreaker Fighter and you get a free Overrun attempt with every Bull Rush...so basically, every time you attack someone with your shield you get a free Bull Rush and a free Overrun on them. Siegebreaker also makes your Bull Rush and Overrun do a bit of damage too, it isn't much, but damage is damage. :)

Oh, I understand. Here's the thing I experienced--it just wasn't worth all the extra CMB rolls and movement. If it's your bag, cool, bash and overrun away!

Shadow Lodge

I played a shield basher in PFS to L12.

Ranger 6/Horizon Walker 3/Viking X (or just go R6/HW X)

IMHO just go high STR and 2H the shield. I originally went with the intent of using Bullrushes...but honestly, 95% it was just better and easier to 2H Power Attack smash something with my shield.

Once I got the Dimensional (X) feats up and running, I would just DimDoor in and smash away. It was never about the damage dice, but the static mods. With the double-dip of armor enchantment as weapon enchantment, it's pretty easy to become a bruiser.

Shadow Lodge ***

It passes the time ;)

Shadow Lodge ***

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thurston Hillman wrote:
Often times, as with how we currently handle encounter design, it's an ongoing battle of picking what we (as authors and developers) feel is the most poignant information for an encounter. Obviously that will NOT apply to all gaming groups, and specific regions can have very specific situations based on character builds. Then we trust GMs to extrapolate what they need in order to run the encounter.

I think you mean "pertinent" because otherwise...

----------
TACTICS
----------
During Combat Insanitus the Mad Mage has been monitoring the PCs' progress via his Arcane Eye. His tactics reflect the how the PCs comport themselves in the mansion in relation to his own heart-rending history.

-Intimidate: if the PCs use this skill in or out of combat, Insanitus remembers being bullied by the older children in the orphanage. This led to crippling self-doubt and an unconscious need for power (to assure he'd never be hurt again). Insanitus will target the intimidating "bully" PC with both a Quickened and normal disintegrate in the surprise round.

-AoE damage: if the PCs use area of effect abilities or spells that damage objects in the Mad Mage's mansion, this incenses Insanitus--when he was adopted by the Cuddlehuggs (see haunt area A3), they greatly restricted what he could own "to build character". Insanitus, finally with a home of his own, has crafted almost all the items in the mansion via his own hands or spells; to see them destroyed so carelessly makes him wroth. Insanitus will target the most damaging PC with both a Quickened and normal disintegrate in the surprise round.

-Cruel Words about Adora: if the PCs say anything negative about Insanitus' deceased lover Adora (see ugly painting area B5), it only reminds Insanitus how the only woman he ever loved ghosted him at the end of their relationship (see ghost encounter B6). Insanitus will target the cruelest PC with a Quickened Reach silence to shut their disrepectful mouths and follow up with a normal disintegrate in the surprise round.

Morale Insanitus is feeling pretty down on himself lately. Agresso the Arcanist did not invite him to his conjuration jubilee. If severely hindered by magic or reduced to half hit points or less, he sighs and spends a full round of self-pitying speechifying before surrendering. Those who hear this speech must make a DC 18 Will save; those who succeed may act as normal, those who fail must spend their turn consoling Insanitus as he relates more of his pathetic history (see Appendices A, B, D & E).

Shadow Lodge

One to circumvent this is to say that as part of your morning routine you life link everyone in the party (or immediately after the briefing if it’s a dive right in scenario). If you’re life linking during combat, you’re countering the main purpose of life link: action economy.

Shadow Lodge ***

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Edwards wrote:
At GenCon, it can be an amazing godsend to have things sort of organically go really quickly as it gives me precious time off to 'enjoy the con'/go to the dealer hall/go play BattleTech down the hall/nap.

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**

PAIZO ANNOUNCES THE MECHFINDER ROLEPLAYING GAME

New Full-Service Far-Future Space Opera RPG Brings Starfinder to the Further Future

REDMOND, WA (Feb 1, 2018): Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder and Starfinder Roleplaying Games, is thrilled to confirm the development of the new Mechfinder Roleplaying Game. The Mechfinder Core Rulebook is slated for an August 2020 release.

Set thousands of years in Starfinder’s future, the Mechfinder RPG will be a stand-alone far-future space opera game evolved from the Starfinder science fantasy game evolved from the Pathfinder RPG rules evolved from the second iteration of the third version of the world's oldest fantasy RPG.

Players take on the role of a roaming mercenary squad of soldiers who pilot massive Mechanized Technicals AKA MechTechs, fighting dirty wars and guerrilla actions for the highest bidder to earn glory...and stacks of Golarions. Mechfinder’s offerings will include a new monthly Mechfinder Adventure Path product line as well as accessories for players and Game Masters.

“It's not Pathfinder with Space Golems,” says James L. Sutter, Techfinder’s creative director. “But, yes, there will be a TechFinder Society.”

For additional information, visit paizo.com.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChaosTicket wrote:
I dont want to quit roleplaying games or tabletop games, just not deal with the Society's problems.

Stop playing PFS.

Problems solved.

Shadow Lodge ***

8 people marked this as a favorite.

ChaosTicket,

Everyone here is being very nice. So, let's just get to it:

Stop playing PFS.

If it doesn't make you happy, stop playing PFS.

If it doesn't meet your particular gaming sensibilities, stop playing PFS.

If you constantly feel the need to complain about it or the people you play with, stop playing PFS.

If the only option you have to game is PFS, and all three of the above are true, stop playing PFS.

If you continue to play PFS despite all of the above, stop coming online to complain about playing PFS.

No one owes an explanation, no one owes you a defense, no one owes you a compassionate ear to listen anymore. After 83 games across 3 different Organized Play campaigns by the same company, you're not satisfied. Don't be the person who does something that makes them miserable and then complains about being miserable; you're not being a brash truthteller, you're being kind of a bummer.

PFS isn't for you.

Stop playing PFS.

Shadow Lodge ***

Trainedchimp, unfortunately, since PFS is RAW and there is no Bloodrager entry in the retraining section, you cannot retrain your bloodline power.

Shadow Lodge

I'll put in a plug for Unchained Rogue 3/Urban Bloodrager -- rage adds DEX, which boosts your primary stat.

Shadow Lodge

Perfect Tommy wrote:
Sammy T wrote:
PCScipio wrote:
Don't forget Liberating Command. It's a bit awkward to use on yourself — you need wait until you turn so you'll have the immediate action for the escape attempt after you cast the spell. It's too useful a spell not to have.
You can’t use Liberating Command on yourself because it’s an immediate action cast which precludes the immediate action escape attempt.
You can if its on a wand.

Good point.

Shadow Lodge

PCScipio wrote:
Don't forget Liberating Command. It's a bit awkward to use on yourself — you need wait until you turn so you'll have the immediate action for the escape attempt after you cast the spell. It's too useful a spell not to have.

You can’t use Liberating Command on yourself because it’s an immediate action cast which precludes the immediate action escape attempt.

Shadow Lodge

Menhir Guardian wrote:
Rebuking Strike (Ex): At 1st level, a menhir guardian can channel his ki into a devastating strike that repels his enemies. A menhir guardian must declare that he is using rebuking strike before making a natural attack with his claws. On a hit, a foe damaged by the menhir guardian’s claws must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw (DC = 10 + half the menhir guardian’s level + his Wisdom modifier) or be pushed back 5 feet directly away from the menhir guardian, plus an additional 5 feet for every 4 levels the menhir guardian has beyond 1st. If this movement would be blocked by a solid object, the target of rebuking strike takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet moved and falls prone at the end of the movement.

What happens when the Rebuking Strike's target is pushed into another creature's square (instead of a solid object)? While there is precedent for how Bull Rush handles this situation, there is no indication how Rebuking Strike would work.

1 to 50 of 1,312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>