Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Contract Devil

Sebastian Hirsch's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,106 posts (1,456 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
It was bad design, and the designers of the current feat understood that. A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.
:(

Don't be sad, there because it isn't strictly a good option, doesn't mean that it has no place, Pathfinder has plenty of bad options.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

It's this point I disagree with.

In mythology, a VoP is not unheard of, and often the source of a great hero's powers. Or a saint's. I think it's a little sad if the game can't simulate that.

I'm fine with there being downsides; you'll certainly lose some flexibility because you can't have a consumable for every situation. But I would like it to be basically playable, especially in a party.

Why, a vow of poverty is traditionally a personal choice, to not let material things, distract you from your spiritual path.

However, this is a game, build on getting and using loot, you can make more out of it, but this is pretty basic to the whole concept.

If your character can be successful while giving a lot of his/her wealth to charity, well done you have just unlocked hard mode well done.

Let's face it most of the characters with a real life vow of poverty didn't have to face an demons or since we have stats for it chutulu.

And I suspect, that none of those characters were fighting in 4-7 person groups of adventurers equipped according to the wealth per level table.

I don't have the time right now, but IIRC the designers mentioned this in response to a complain about the vow, it is not supposed to be an equal replacement to all the things you would normally get.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jeff Merola wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
The 3.5 VoP was insane in that it looked good, but was actually a trap because it leaves your character lacking some very important end game abilities.

The dirty little secret is, that the party doesn't usually get less loot, it just ends up with the other players. They in turn use their wealth to support the VOP character when necessary.

It was bad design, and the designers of the current feat understood that. A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

If the GM was doing that, then they weren't following the WBL guidelines OR the VoP feat itself. And the bit of extra money on the other players generally doesn't make up for having to spend a bunch of extra actions supporting someone who's essentially dead weight at mid to higher levels.

Frankly I have never played in a group with that particular abomination, and since it is 3.5 it will not happen. I am frankly willing to forget its existance.

The new one is far less offensive, it is so very bad, that it should motivate fewer people to bother ^^

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, searching for goblins isn't all that fun, I will quite likely wait to play again until the issue is resolved.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jeff Merola wrote:
The 3.5 VoP was insane in that it looked good, but was actually a trap because it leaves your character lacking some very important end game abilities.

The dirty little secret is, that the party doesn't usually get less loot, it just ends up with the other players. They in turn use their wealth to support the VOP character when necessary.

It was bad design, and the designers of the current feat understood that. A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andreas Forster wrote:

True, that old version of Vow of Poverty was just insane.

Although Pathfinder's Vow of Poverty gives the character lots of Ki, I don't know if it's worth it (I wouldn't take it for my characters. I just like saving for awesome items too much).

The monk would definitely have no problems with DR, that's what his monk abilities are for. But at some point you might want to gain access to some special abilities that only some magic items can grant.
Improvised spellcasting from wands is indeed one such thing (and even if there's no character that has your wand's spell on their spell list, 1 rank in UMD lets you activate the wand as long as you have enough time to roll the check a few times).
There is other stuff that is really great, especially those items that only appear on chronicles. Many of those are really awesome.

Well, such a monk would not be able to deal with DR/adamantine until level 16, and if I learned one thing from recent adventures ... hardness is a dog of the female persuasion. ^^

Vow of poverty is a bad deal, and frankly I think it is unreasonable to let players die for bad choices like this... I would never advocate for not healing a dying player, no matter the circumstances. And I realize this sounds terrible, but I would like to voice my problems with this kind of choice in a respectful manner (ie throw a fit ^^ ).

I feel that players deserve a warning when it comes to this option.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Come and Get Me and Mythic Reflexes isn't an obscure combination. It's an OBVIOUS combination. CAGM and Pounce are the two most powerful rage powers a barbarian has. Reflexes synergizes just like the basic charge options does. Literally, how could they have missed it?

==Aelryinth

Compartmentalization.

And lets be clear, a fighter with a big sword and power attack (incl. the mythic version) is an obvious combination.
A rarely used (meaning level 12+, which if Paizos market research is to be believed) ability from a non-core book (yeah APG is pretty much as core as you get outside of the CRB) that interacts with Mythic Combat Reflexes, mythic abilities in general, and guardian path (an optional subset of rules, that frankly not a lot of people will use, unless they plan to play the AP).

The problem, I assume started, when the designers thought about mythic versions for existing feats, without considering the wider implications.
And sometimes the reasoning apparently was "because mythic" without thinking how some of these abilities utterly wrack many campaigns (yeah I have some acid left when it comes to the "undetectable" legendary ability). The desire to give players cool stuff seems to have been superseding the need to provide a proper challenge. And some design choices, like the mythic/nonmythic divide still baffle me.

I still support the idea of an open playtest of the final pdf (just let some of us by it before the book goes to print.

magnuskn wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
The Problem really only comes with the disconnect between MA (and you could argue that some of the mythic monsters in said book are already quite anemic when it comes to hp) and WotR.

They are exactly as disastrously badly conceived as the ones in WotR and that is about the main problem with Mythic Adventures. The designers completely, utterly fumbled the ball on the ratio of PC to monster power and also seemingly did not math out at all about how much damage characters and monster would deal and be able to take. The result is a mess of a system which, as coming out of the book, turns into an unplayable trainwreck as soon as tier three is hit (unless players nerf their characters on purpose to not take the obviously superior path abilities / mythic feats over the equally obviously underpowered ones).

I don't object to the ridiculously high numbers in Mythic Adventures on principle, but then those have to be matched with an equal ability to endure that kind of damage by the opponents which are supposed to still represent a challenge. This does not happen and this utter failure to present a working system to their customers is a shameful display for Paizo. I expect better of them and so far I have not seen much indication that they are going to better their standards or even try to fix their mistakes. Well, I guess "fixing mistakes" doesn't make money, since they already sold their books. :-/

We are a pretty angry lot, aren't we ? To be fair, and I asked Mr Jacobs about this, but taking the time to fix this mess would delay other products, and this might make even more people unhappy.

Now I don't agree 100% here, but I think mythic is pretty much fixed by to community at this point, we literally have had ALL the ideas ^^, the only thing left to do is to create some easy to access repository for these rules.

You could even separate it - suggested modifications for running the WotR adventure path, and general mythic advise. Of course modding the entire campaign (like: Encounter P99 add the advanced simple template to the two demons and add 4 skeletal champions and 10 charmed crussaders level drained to the very edge)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:

I diagree with your ruling. I See you can nto carry wealth of others over 50 gp.

Thats what the "that belongs to others." infers to all the points before that.

Debatable, I would argue that a monk with vow of poverty should not be able too just give all his loot to his companions, until they can pay to upgrade his +10 intelligent weapon.

But yeah, the vow is already supposed to be bad (as opposed to the 3.5 incarnation which was ...insane), and I suspect that the level of linguistic scrutiny wasn't quite as bad as some contracts.

And you could always argue, that the sword you just took from the assassin trying to kill you, is not your legal property.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sniggevert wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:

I highly suggest reading the FAQ for Society play.

I found this little gem today:
"What do I need to bring to a game to use non-core material?
In order to use additional resources for your character, you must bring a physical copy of the book with you or printouts of the appropriate pages detailing cost (if any) and explanations for each feat, item, spell, prestige class, and so on that you use. One need not prove ownership of said material but they must be from a legally obtained PDF or book printed by Paizo Publishing; content reproduced in other sources under the Open Gaming License (such as an online reference document or a homemade omnibus) is not legal with regard to use in sanctioned Pathfinder Society play. Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products included in the Additional Resources list. As such, it is each player's responsibility to bring to the game any necessary rules for running his or her character so that GMs may properly adjudicate the game during play."

See the part about ownership. Since one must not actually prove ownership, perhaps we can drop that part of the conversation.

In reading this before, I guess I just overlooked that part about ownership. But, proving ownership isn't a requirement.

At which point I really have to ask why photocopies from books aren't allowed? I just cannot fathom that people cheating by modifying copies would be so prevalent as to justify inconveniencing everyone who owns a legal copy of a book.

Maybe Paizo doesn't wish to make a blanket statement that it is OK to photocopy their work? Protecting IP can be a tenuous thing, and the more openings you give for "legitimate" copying the harder it is to prove and limit illegitimate copying.

The right to make a photocopy for personal use is a matter that depends on the IP laws in your country, they tend to be different.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
I'd suggest grabbing the Heirloom Weapon trait and selecting a non-Exotic Monk weapon. Preferably something you can Flurry with. Just enchant it as funds allow.

See my last post, even your heirloom weapon can't be worth more than 50 GP.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zach Klopfleisch wrote:

The other issue I'm seeing with a Vow of Poverty monk is that he's limited to things he can buy with the gold from one adventure. If he has to donate any excess gold, he will not be able to save up for higher level items.

This is less of an issue in home games where he can pick up magic items used by defeated enemies, but PFS doesn't allow that. So no Amulet of Mighty Fists until he's playing in tier at 8-9, for example.

Vow of Poverty wrote:

Restriction: The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item. Five of these items must be of plain and simple make, though one can be of some value (often an heirloom of great personal significance to the monk). The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself for 1 week in modest accommodations. He cannot borrow or carry wealth or items worth more than 50 gp that belong to others. He is allowed to accept and use curative potions (or similar magical items where the item is consumed and is valueless thereafter) from other creatures.

The bolded part pretty much ruins using loot from fallen enemies.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sammy T wrote:
Just to save everyone time rehashing this topic (bringing your own healing), may I suggest this 591-post thread, "I bought a Gosh Darn cure wand" for your perusal?

Thank you for the link, I will check it out, in this case a character with Vow of Poverty can't own items of this nature.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andreas Forster wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Doesn't this vow impose an unfair burden on the other players?

After all, a monk with this vow is unable to own a wand of CLW, a potion of remove disease and .... well plenty of other things.

Considering Painlords suggestions, you pretty much have nothing in that list.
And this leaves the other players at the table 2 options, use their resources on the monk, or don't do so and risk a character death or worse a TPK.

Wands of Cure light Wounds are no party healers, they're backup items.

If there's a healer in the party, that character has renewable resources with which to heal injured characters. If there isn't, then healing will consume non-renewable resources.
Also, owning a Wand of Cure light Wounds is not mandatory. Everybody who buys such a wand, however, should know that his wand may have to be used as backup healing.
Also, that monk will fulfill a role as well. Many will have a few Qigong Monk abilities to make use of all their Ki points. Also, monks can be good damage dealers and/or good tanks.

If that monk just does nothing productive which might lead to increased cost in resources or even a TPK, then yes, there's an unfair burden. But it's not the vow that causes the unfair burden, it's the way the monk is played.
Such a player should just be talked to. Maybe he/she simply doesn't know they're making bad tactical choices. But always remember to be polite in such a matter, in most cases there's some kind of concept idea behind that character and what appears to be bad tactics to one person in fact fits the character idea perfectly.

In short, I'm tired of the general assumption that everybody has to bring a Wand of CLW to create a "fair" game.

A Wand of CLW is only the very first object I decided to mention, that the monk can't have. It only gets worse from there. I won't list everything the monk can't readily provide for himself, and items that would allow him to deal with temporary/permanent conditions, but he also can't invest in some of the staple items (the big 6), so among other things dealing with DR might be a problem.

But ok, if the player has wants his character to shoot himself in the foot, first thing in the morning, so be it.

Your argument about healers doesn't really work IMO, sure if the party has a character with somewhat dedicated healing resources (eg. Channel Energy), great, but I think assuming anything else is might be stretching it.
A Warpriest will quite likely plan to use his fervor to buff/heal himself, the same is true for a paladin capable of converting his lay on hands into smites and of course cleric spells.

Of course we should always cooperate, but when a player decides to play a concept, that is extremely reliant on the cooperation and resources of other party members, things get muddy.

If a play someone capable of healing, and now have to heal the stupid barbarian, that charged enraged (-4 AC) into the ranks of the enemy without wearing armor, cause it didn't fit his concept.

I know that playing stupid, and playing a substandard concept aren't the same thing, but with the above example, the barbarian could have bought a better healing wand for the cleric, or a wand of mage armor to help with his AC.

A monk with vow of poverty, does not have this option. Pretty much all he can do is "beg" his fellow party members for buffs (mage armor) and healing, since he is not capable of providing it.

This concept can work in a home game with a permanent group, but since you PFS often consists of pretty random groups...

It may sound insulting, but if someone drops his sick dog on my doorstep, I will make sure it gets medical attention, but I won't thank him for it.

Obviously once you sit at the table with a new player, things aren't nearly as critical, but I still think that taking the vow is a bad trade, the quigong archetype helps just a bit.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Victor Zajic wrote:
I think the under APL fights are on purpose. Mythic Heroes should get the chance to feel badass while they curb stomp some puny monsters.

I have heard the same sentiment about an adventure in Kingmaker.. by the designer IIRC. However some of those fights would still not be a significant challenge even without mythic.

As a showcase of "we are sooo awesome with mythic" I think the character has to power a credible threat to the group without mythic.
If the group could already decimate them.. whats the point?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Then just ban Mythic Combat Reflexes. As a GM you can already limit the number of free actions, and deciding that limiting AOOs before the topic of air friction becomes an issue ... seems sane.

I will not be banning stuff that other characters can use in a reasonable manner. Come and Get Me is the problem, not Combat Reflexes. It was a problem without mythic, mythic just made it worse. If I ban Come and Get Me, I end up in an argument with one of my players and he'll feel I'm ruining his character concept. Then he'll start b~+#*ing every time someone else uses something he thinks is over-powered. There are plenty of other problems in this game.

I voiced my opinion to Paizo. Their concerns seem to end at level 12 because that is where Pathfinder Society ends their games. I'm done with Paizo after this AP. That's the answer I came up with.

You seem to not mind supporting poorly designed rules because you feel doing their work for them is an acceptable use of your time. I don't feel it is an acceptable use of my time. They have lost me as a customer. They won't get me back until they clean up their rule set.

I supported them when they split off from D&D and went with 4E. Now I feel they are like 4E: a badly designed game that is not very fun to play. Too much rules bloat. Too little oversight on how all these rules work together. No support past level 12. This feels exactly like 3E at the end of their cycle when the bloat ruined the game. If Paizo doesn't want to exercise stronger oversight, I can find other things to spend my money on.

That's my answer to this conundrum. Last AP for me. Story is good. That part I'll enjoy. Rule system is going to be a real pain in my behind. I hope I'm able to finish this without burning out. I'll find out soon enough as they're hitting mythic very soon.

Actually I think come and get me is pretty balanced without mythic, you are limited by the number of AOOs you can make, if you take combat reflexes and have a lower strength for it, all the better.

Now an optimized player will already focus his or her attention on still being unhittable even with rage and the come and get me effect, but it is still reasonable, after all why should only the other classes get great stuff at high levels. Personally I would have added some cost (like more rounds of rage expended for come and get me) but that is just personal preference.

Mythic breaks it. Now let's not be coy, your player is playing something very optimized with this combination and the fact that he wants to play a guardian is certainly a part of it, and while mythic combat reflexes is certainly reasonable for a build with reach, this somewhat obscure combination is just very good.

Once systems reach a certain size, combinations like this are going to happen. Most designers just don't have the system mastery to see every potential combination, and frankly they are creating new material they are already quite busy.

At times like these, they depend on the GMs out there to be the voice of reason. If this is unacceptable to you, that frankly most RPGs will be troublesome once they have reached a certain size.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:

If you are this disspirited about this AP even before you have hit mythic levels, you might as well spare yourself (and your players) having to break off the campaign when you are fully invested.

I myself broke off two Kingmaker campaigns early because I hated the story aspect and other problems of that AP. With WotR, I am already at the end of book four and I can see the light at the end of the tunnel (14 more encounters to go, by my calculation). If I had the foreknowledge of all the BS going on with mythic rules before deciding on this AP, you can be sure that I would have rather run Reign of Winter of Shattered Star. Now, since I am committed, I just take all the ridiculousness as a source of bitter amusement.

I had to shorten book 6 considerably, even turning the last boss encounter into - lets face it - an animated video.

That AP can use a lot of additions when it comes to the political side, I added a lot, but as written the meta plot that is concluded (and some would argue started) is completely missed by the players. I get why, you don't want your players running off to fight the BBEG as soon as they can afford plane shift, but yeah.

As a player and self confessed power gamer (and anime fan, that is pretty important) I am still kinda in love with some of the new options and chances for new game play (hell I even started to stat anime characters in the playtest, and I was quite happy with my Bleach Characters).

The Problem really only comes with the disconnect between MA (and you could argue that some of the mythic monsters in said book are already quite anemic when it comes to hp) and WotR.
High level monsters are already.... ah just remember that the CR system is like more like a souflé, so 9/10 you will end up with a disaster^^

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Odraude wrote:

I think it's the aftermath of ACG. It's still upon us so it's hard to be excited for a new book when a current one is still receiving negative reviews.

Still the playtest should be interesting. Thanks again for the comments Mark. I'm glad you keep on posting here on the forums for us and hope ou keep it up.

Actually, I really like the ACG, and can't really complain all that much about the needed errata. But to be honest, I am still in a wrestling match with Mythic Adventures and WotR, we sometimes stop for a heated love affair, before re resume... it's complicated ^^

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I searched, but I can't find it either. Just could always just export the page as a image an delete what you don't need.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Magus with variant that is CHA based, it still gives you some bonus feats, and frankly you don't need that many.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Galnörag wrote:
My current party of 6 is Level 9 / MT 3 (or 4) we are early in the third book, and different folks have different trials completed. They are frequently defeat encounters whose CR is APL + 4 with little challenge (and for APL I'm counting L as Level + tier + 1 for large party + 1 for 20 point build) So lets call them APL 14 easily handling CR 18-20 encounters. So while I disagree with the "failed" AP comment, I would say the ability to run as written is impossible.

The AP is too good to be called a failed AP - I think the NPCs are on par with the best of them - but, I think it is fair to call the CR system used in the AP is seriously flawed.

I think it is fair to say, that parallel development, is to blame here, and I am happy to learn that Paizo took it as a learning experience. (Apparently Occult Adventures and the corresponding AP are made by the same person in charge).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
voska66 wrote:

I'm running it now finishing book 3 and I'm finding the CRs aren't correct. Too many CR 8 fights for APL 14 Parties. If I'm following mythic adventures right the APL of a 4 level 12 character with 5 mythic tiers be average character level +2. Also the wealth in the game is almost double normal Wealth by level guideline for level 12 characters but is about right on for APL 14 party. Level 12 being 108,000 and level 14 being 185,000.

So it seem like the encounter design was set up for non mythic character. So I've increased the CR of most of the encounters in Book by 2-5 CR by adding the advanced template, adding extra monster, or adding addition levels to the bad guys.

Yeah some encounters are seriously under APL even if you discount the effect of mythic. I tend to skip those, and just present my players with fewer harder encounters. This is a current trend in the APs but since they are intended for a less optimized group, they could pose some threat.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If I can kick myself sufficiently, I will put my "collected wisdom" on the topic in a google doc, and open a thread for it. That ways I can just post a link to my and other peoples changes.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Look I don't have the time right now, but I have answered this question quite a number of times already, just searching in my posts should find you answer.

Sorry if this sounds rude, but the answer to that particular question is usually quite long. And remember 5 players are substantially more powerful than 4.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Then just ban Mythic Combat Reflexes. As a GM you can already limit the number of free actions, and deciding that limiting AOOs before the topic of air friction becomes an issue ... seems sane.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Doesn't this vow impose an unfair burden on the other players?

After all, a monk with this vow is unable to own a wand of CLW, a potion of remove disease and .... well plenty of other things.

Considering Painlords suggestions, you pretty much have nothing in that list.
And this leaves the other players at the table 2 options, use their resources on the monk, or don't do so and risk a character death or worse a TPK.

Can you when this leads to a TPK, and the monk just says "Oh well I have plenty of PP to spare..." while the other characters are just plain dead?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
burkoJames wrote:
I had asked if I could upgrade it like a weapon, rather then a named item only increasing the +, I was not getting positive responces, thanks for the input.

Actually I think Nefreet answered your question, you can buy an AoMF with a +1 enhancement bonus or equivalent ability an later add more powers to it by paying the difference, just like a weapon, an amulet of natural amor or a ring of protection.

I guess we were a little bit confused by your use of "like a weapon" since weapons scale differently.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terek wrote:

I just want to put this out there. Not everyone dislikes ACG, MA, and WotR.

I love the advanced class guide. Sure mistakes happen, but it has some very creative and fun classes that fill new niches. My players that have used it like it too.

I also love Mythic Adventures and Wrath of the Righteous. I feel they fill a more thematic niche.

Different players have different tastes. I am grateful for the variety Paizo provides. Even though I may not like everything.

I think you will find, that only people who are somehow invested in something tend to complain a lot. I can only speak for myself, but I really like MA and WotR, they just don't work together very well (I think at this point, it is pretty clear, that the AP could have benefited from a 6-12 month delay).

I agree, that you can't make everybody happy, the art in most pathfinder products is a good example here. I might love the occasional piece, but there are certainly some I could live without.

Edit: Some might not like an adventure in a jungle on the moon, fighting a succubus antipaladin... but it made me subscribe ^^

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Congratulation on the new job, and don't worry others have the same distractions.

Btw have you had any interaction with sunder in your game? Those high damage numbers could potentially destroy items with ease.

I like that your players use the deathless spell, it could also be used by the enemies^^

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would argue that both abilities work together.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yup.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I really like the inclusive stance paizo has taken on the issue, of well everything. Of course most players are unlikely to learn those details, but I think it is an important step nonetheless.

One example of this would be early in WotR, the marriage bit might be a surprise (one of my players said something stupid and I responded with: You are playing a sorcerer, with the blood if over sized magic lizard in your veins and try to stop a huge rift in the fabric of the universe.... and you have a problem with lesbian marriage?" It worked, but I see no chance that they will ever discover the magical bit of that relationship.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Boon companion does nothing in that build.

And frankly I think, pure hunter has it's advantages. You suffer a bit in the archery department, but with that mix you tend tend to lose quite a bit.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Things like Divine Protection... just feel like a someone missed a step. I can see this, and the warpriest as some ways for people to get their very own "build a paladin kit", but essentially this feat is a huge gift to a number of classes and builds.

Divine protection would have been fine it if gave a flat +1 sacred bonus to all saves. As it is, it is broken, broken, broken for Oracles.

Yeah, pretty much and frankly I am quite happy that it at least requires a domain, otherwise aasimars might be able to qualify.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
One ACG criticism which I belive warrants some merit is the issue of disjunction between the class chapter (which was, AFAIK, written by Jason/Sean/Stephen) and the archetypes and feats chapters which are, again I'm guessing, outsourced to freelancers mostly. As a result, there's less coherency and consistency than it would be if everything would be written just by 3 guys. Of course the question is, whether such model is necessary to be able to put the book in a reasonable time at all.
I do think that Paizo needs to look at how they design archetypes and feats in particular, because that's where I see the most problems. A lot of archetypes are thematically awesome and mechanically underwhelming, across multiple books.

I tend to agree, my specific example is the primal companion hunter archetype, I would love to play it, but it is so damn broken. And you only give up animal focus for it. This is only one specific example, but things like this tend to happen. I don't mind the outsourcing, but it sometimes feels like there are things that slip through the net.

Things like Divine Protection... just feel like a someone missed a step. I can see this, and the warpriest as some ways for people to get their very own "build a paladin kit", but essentially this feat is a huge gift to a number of classes and builds.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I supported the recent legendary gamess mythic kickstarter, and the plan seems to be to send out the pdfs to us, then gather the feedback to fix every typo and only then send it to the printer.

I appreciate, that this might cause some trouble with retail, but would this be an option you would be willing to experiment with?

Crowdsourcing development and editing come with their own problems. Yes, you will probably catch and fix more mistakes, but the in-house effort spent to find each issue will be significantly higher. Let me give you a small-scale example:

Whenever we prepare to reprint a book, we have somebody—usually Jason—scan the FAQ queue and go through the main discussion threads for that product looking for things that need to be fixed. This is a process that might take a few days. Then, he and his team work on solving those problems if they haven't already been solved. During this process, they will also be investigating problem reports that are actually false positives; for example, somebody might have complained that a number in a stat block is wrong, but when we redo the math, we often find that we were right in the first place. This might take another few days. At the end of it, we have a list of changes that then go through editing, layout, and proofing, meaning more people spending more days. And the end result of that work gets summed up in an errata doc that's usually less than a page or two. In short, many man-hours of effort that result in maybe a dozen little changes.

Now image that we do that as an open call. Our days would turn into weeks, and maybe our errata doc would grow from a dozen items to two dozen, with each of the additional items very likely being far less noticeable than the previous dozen. It's the law of diminishing returns.

And crowdsourcing still won't catch everything. We're in our 6th printing of the Core Rulebook now, and in each printing, we've made corrections in response to our community identifying...

Yes it may not be perfect, but a concentrated proofreading of fresh eyes might be able to catch quite a bit. Problems where an ability is not clearly written (example:Hunter pet skirmisher tricks), where an ability was changed and the changes to the monsters were't updated (Mythic Adventures), or when an item is printed without a saving throw (ACG Cape of Feinting).

These are the sort of errors a most people will be able to find, of course there are others, who take the time to correct things on the level of an editor (the Mythic Adventures errata threat has a good example of this). I think this would be a nice way to prevent some of the negative feelings resulting from some of the recent releases.

Obviously this would not catch everything, some combinations (Mythic x your level of system proficiency) are quite difficult to spot.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hayato Ken wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

I expect Occult Mysteries to be amazing though, because so many of the people at Paizo love the concept. They've been planning and ruminating on something they love and are excited about, and love is where the real magic comes from.

Fear not, your damning praise will be quickly silenced by all the "ha ha Failzo hates point-based psionics so they're giving us another vancian system where casters rule and martials drool' people ;-)
How good that there are droolbags so nothing get´s spilled on the floor.

...But he is already a bag, this could become recursive pretty damn quick, and considering that drool is a bodily fluid... maybe incestuous? Not really a big expert when it comes to bags ..

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

A: The more complex this system become, the more likely things like this are going to be. It is going to happen.

B: You can still say no to come and get me.

C: This tactic goes online at level 12, plenty of time to kill the character, and if it doesn't work there are plenty of options.

DR: If the enemy DR is significant enough, even all those attacks will not sting that much.

Confusion and mind control, ranged attacks of all kinds, mirrors of opposition, fire shield and similar effects, swarms that immune to weapon damage and plenty of other effects.

HOWEVER, just like dealing with archers this can feel quite unfair for the player, instead of every enemy suddenly having wind wall or fickle winds active .. other things happen.

One of the problems here is, that the downsides (suffering more damage) are almost entirely eaten by that insane trait. But since you go for superpowerfull you might as well leave them in there.

From your second post, I assume that you don't really want help, cause I know how this tango is played:

GM"My player is overpowered"
US"So just do not allow the overpowered option/combination"
GM"But ... ... ... reasons."
US"So just use the following things"
GM"But that isn't fun for the player, he will feel unfairly victimized"
US"Well yeah, if I you make yourself almost immune to getting hit on the head, people will start kicking you in the stomach."

But yeah, a witch or a magus with the evil eye and retribution hexes should ruin the barbarians day, there are other spells and effects.

So yeah to reiterate my first suggestion, kill it with fire.

And a question, how is that character supposed to heal ?

Other than the oracle, but that healing will feel like a drop in the bucket.

When you're talking to me, understand you're talking to a person that's been gaming since his youth. I've been playing since the red D&D book all the way up to Pathfinder.

I have no interest in killing my players. I...

Just forbid the damn combo. Or just Mythic Combat Reflexes. The limited nature of combat reflexes is the only thing that keeps this combo sane.

It is a bit like menthos and coke, they are ok do consume separately but once you combine it. you get a big mess.

You will have to decided what sources you want to allow, my suggestion would be to talk to your player about the combo, and what is likely to happen.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wiggz wrote:
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:

I don't need much (if any) assistance as a DM other than Paizo to stop releasing combinations like this. I've been DMing over 30 years. Of course I don't need much assistance. It's a rare event that someone introduces an idea as a DM that I have not already thought of.

My problem is not my DMing skill. I'm about as good as they come at challenging players. That's why I can run a high-powered mythic campaign and have any hope of challenging my players without killing them. Because that's also the goal...not to kill them and make it fun, while challenging them. But when stuff like this gets put in the game, Paizo makes that very hard to do for the reasons I have already explained.

I disagreed quite vociferously with the introduction of the Mythic ruleset - I disagreed that it was needed to tell this particular story and I disagreed with the presumption that 'more rules = better rules', but predictably my objections went largely unheard, drowned out by the chorus of 'MOAR!', so I simply chose to exercise my privilege as GM to not use the rules. We just recently finished a completely Mythic-free run of Wrath of the Righteous and it was one of the best campaigns we've ever had, second only to a very memorable Skull n' Shackles AP.

I find that its almost always better to decide ahead of time what it is you want in your games, rather than to give your players free reign from the outset to do as they like and then spend all your time trying to stop them from doing what they like after the fact. That puts you in danger of becoming adversarial with them which can be a terrible position when the entire goal is cooperative story-telling.

Just my two cents.

I think that the mythic rulesset has the distinct potential for less rules, if used correctly.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok to make this short and sweet, would I like Paizo to fix some combinations I personally think are broken, yes.

Will it happen, no.

Do I think Gunslingers with perma stun, a magus taking down a dragon with a critical calcific touch, ranger archers with APG spells...... will be changed any time soon? No.

Just cause two rules create a very powerful combo doesn't mean that Paizo has to see everything. And frankly some of the mythic feats are pretty much garbage.

Just look at mythic power attack and mythic furious focus.

I think it bears repeating, you have to decide between buffing the monsters or nerfing the players, the end result might be the same.
Just saying.

And I still don't see why dazing spell is apparently so good.

The fact that the party is very effective, is nothing new and I am still arguing, that their power equals about 2 parties, not 1 1/2.

I'll try to go into more detail tomorrow, but at this point most suggestions will be how to handle the players given the information you provided. If you give different, or more loot, or allow for more crafting time (ENFORCE THE LIMITS FROM ULTIMATE CAMPAIGN AT ALL TIMES^^) things will change.

In this case the player seems to have found a nice combo (oh and remember you can still sunder the armor, or the gauntlet. "Attacking him is rather vague). But yeah, plenty of ways around that, and killing the rest of the party first, should make things easier.
If that is your mindset, but to be honest, if the players come to the table with some hyper competitive build, this seems like a declaration of war.

IIRC Come and Get me is based on Robiliars Gamit, some beast from the dark ages (3.5), is apparently some important fighter from Greyhawk with a metal horse.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

You're thinking of the Forsaker from 3e.

==Aelryinth

Thank you, I shudder when I think about it. So many poor magic items where destroyed.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
Did... did you just cut yourself off with the realization? That's kind of funny. =)

Yeah kinda, I could swear though, that there was some kind of ability like this, where a character could not voluntarily accept a spell under any circumstances. Must have been in 3.5. Most things were.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:

Sebastian hits it on the head. A character that's super-specialized like this may be awesome when they can pull their schtick off, but intelligent enemies - especially those with reason and ability to know the party's tactics in advance, like Baphomet - will eventually learn to avoid triggering his special trick and will go with alternate methods of getting at him (spells, ranged attacks, and so forth). Sure he can pounce, but can he charge 100+ feet and still make those attacks? Remember the range on a Longbow is 120 feet, and that's prior to any feats or enhancements that increase the range. Spells can have even longer ranges, especially for some evocations, and casters can use things like greater invisibility to avoid getting noticed before they can get a closer-range spell off, then fly away.

It's how the game works. You can make a decent all-around generalist "jack of all trades, master of none" character, who has a decent chance at using most any style but won't be as good at any of them as a specialist. Or you can do like this barbarian has done, super-specialize, and have to learn how to deal with things that don't fall within the spectrum of your specialization.

Quote:
And a question, how is that character supposed to heal ?
I don't see anything in the suggested statblocks that prevents them from getting healed by a caster ally or potions. I presume the party cleric/whatever will have Faith's Reach and can stand back a ways and toss over a healing spell as necessary. If the barbarian's level 12+, so will any caster in the party (presumingly) be, meaning they'll have access to heal. (Unless of course they don't have a cleric/oracle/witch in the group, or they chose not to take that spell for some inexplicable reason...)

And remember that ranged weapons just inflict a -2 penalty on the attack roll per further range increment. With the Warpriest and his minor blessing (air ?) you could hit from more than a 1000 ft. away.

Piccolo mentioned it in other places, the barbarian is going to be

Superstition (Ex). Just reread the damn thing, not having to resist spells outside combat rather ruins my point.

A real shame, that the barbarian doesn't have to resist the breath of life cast by his allies.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A: The more complex this system become, the more likely things like this are going to be. It is going to happen.

B: You can still say no to come and get me.

C: This tactic goes online at level 12, plenty of time to kill the character, and if it doesn't work there are plenty of options.

DR: If the enemy DR is significant enough, even all those attacks will not sting that much.

Confusion and mind control, ranged attacks of all kinds, mirrors of opposition, fire shield and similar effects, swarms that immune to weapon damage and plenty of other effects.

HOWEVER, just like dealing with archers this can feel quite unfair for the player, instead of every enemy suddenly having wind wall or fickle winds active .. other things happen.

One of the problems here is, that the downsides (suffering more damage) are almost entirely eaten by that insane trait. But since you go for superpowerfull you might as well leave them in there.

From your second post, I assume that you don't really want help, cause I know how this tango is played:

GM"My player is overpowered"
US"So just do not allow the overpowered option/combination"
GM"But ... ... ... reasons."
US"So just use the following things"
GM"But that isn't fun for the player, he will feel unfairly victimized"
US"Well yeah, if I you make yourself almost immune to getting hit on the head, people will start kicking you in the stomach."

But yeah, a witch or a magus with the evil eye and retribution hexes should ruin the barbarians day, there are other spells and effects.

So yeah to reiterate my first suggestion, kill it with fire.

And a question, how is that character supposed to heal ?

Other than the oracle, but that healing will feel like a drop in the bucket.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:

After much grousing and malingering, I've decided to give Mythic Adventures a shot. Not sure how much I'll like it given the insane difficulty of challenging the players, but I'm taking the Mythic Adventures challenge.

You know, that the Mythic Adventures challenge might has longer lasting effects than the ice bucket challenge? Just ask Magnuskn, i suspect he will feel the effects of that one for some time. But to be more constructive and less mean:

Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:

The Characters

Background: The characters are the children of the previous player's Kingmaker PCs. They enjoyed that campaign so much, they wanted to create legacy characters to build upon history of the kingdom they built.

The Kingdom of Tre'aravand is the largest in existence. It borders Numeria, Ustalav, Mendev, and Kyonin. The River Kingdoms, Brevoy, Galt, Razmiran, and all land to the East not claimed by other kingdoms they consider their territory. King Kael is at war with Numeria and Ustalav, the two nations having formed an alliance to check the power of Kael and his companions. The king is chaotic neutral, but the kingdom is neutral good due to the influence of the king's companions. The war with Numeria and Ustalav is why the parents are unable to come north to stop The Worldwound.

I let them roll using a generous ability generation system. They all have multiple starting 18s and good all around stats. I figure if they're going to rise to mythical status, why not have mythical abilities.

The characters:

Luthor, of King Kael and Adriana Irovetti, Sister of Castruccio Irovetti: CN Human Invulnerable Rager Barbarian 3. He wields a greatsword and looks like a demonic beast when raging. He hates his father and loves his mother. He hopes to one day kill his father.

Vesper, Daughter of King Kael and Adriana Irovetti, Sister of Castruccio Irovetti: CG Human Inspired Blade Swashbuckler 3. She wields a rapier and glides around the battlefield. She tries to quell her brother's hate for their father and bring the family closer together.

Salindria, Child of Destiny, Daughter of Prime Minister Acerak NG Half-elf Paladin of Desna 2/Slayer 1. It is her dream that leads the characters to Kenabres in their time of need. I allowed the player to make a paladin of Desna because I thought it fit the adventure's plot.

Hiro, Son of Prime Minister Acerak: N Human Arcanist 3. He is the son of Calistria.

Soranna Rae Angelborn, Son of Idora and a Valathiel, a...

Good luck, remember 6 players is a lot, usually you wan increase the number of enemies by 100 %

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
burkoJames wrote:
Ive got a question I cant find an answer to by searching this thread. An amulet of mighty fists can be enchanted to grant melee weapon abilities. Can i upgrade it as I would a melee weapon, or can I only upgrade its enhancement bonus?

An amulet of mighty fists, can only be upgraded as listed in the description, but it is worth mentioning, that you do not have to buy the +1 enhancement bonus version. A flaming amulet of mighty fists is perfectly legal.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Get a wand of infernal healing, and/or a wand of CLW or better. You won't be able to heal effectively in combat anyway.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think it's very reasonable to pull punches when it comes to new players, there is really no reason to ruin someones first experience like this. Call it cheating if you will, but some scenarios can be quite deadly for a group of 4 level 1 characters.

Suggesting to every player:"Just play a barbarian for the first 3 encounters and then retrain to you intended concept". Should not be good advice.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Only from conversation with other groups, that played the adventure on a higher level, did we learn about the alternate options… and frankly the group had no way to access that very specific spell.

If by "that very specific spell", you're talking about

** spoiler omitted **

I think, in this case, I'll throw in a bit of descriptive flavor (no mechanical change), describing how the character who could benefit from that Very Specific Spell looks as the event is occurring.

** spoiler omitted **

That way the players might have a better chance of realizing that that option might be a Good Idea.

Also, since this is a 3-7, Painlord's really useful posts about what PCs should be expected to have access to is on-point. By 3rd level, the casters can afford to start a small collection of spell scrolls- the kind of things that don't come up often enough to memorize/pray for, but when they come up are crucial. Potions for non-casters can sometimes fill the same need.

Things like water breathing. Do we need it often enough to have it ready? No. When it comes up, do we Really Really Need It Right Now? Yes. Get it as a scroll or potion. Be prepared.

*

Yeah the suggestions are great, unfortunately I was playing a pregen, and frankly a comprehend languages is far cheaper than tongues.

I have already shown the list of suggestions to some of my regular players^^

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Only from conversation with other groups, that played the adventure on a higher level, did we learn about the alternate options… and frankly the group had no way to access that very specific spell.

If by "that very specific spell", you're talking about

** spoiler omitted **

spoiler:
I was talking about tongues, a simple comprehend languages might not be sufficient in the circumstances.

I think there are ways to get the cyberplasm out of his host body, we had a monk who understood how to use nonlethal damage. The situation was ultimately resolved with alchemists fire, but our backup plan was to "kite" the cyberplasm for as long is it took us to go outside and purchase new aoe attacks.

At this point we didn't know, that the thing had some kind of conscience, but since we lacked any way to communicate with it the point was moot anyway.

With a low level group (a druid, a figher (with an adamantine weapon), a monk, a pregen Kyra (me), and I think I am forgetting someone) the peaceful option wasn't really on the table, but I heard from another table that a swarmbane clasp was used, and another one talked to the creature and gave it a horse to inhabit.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Congratulations.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I tend to complain a bit here and there (mostly about mythic to be honest) but I really like the ACG. I think the class designs is about as good as it has ever been (better than CRB, on par with UM), and I actively encourage my players to use the new classes.
Are they perfect, nope, there are quite a number of open questions and faq requests when it comes to the them, but that seems to be the nature of the beast.

If you work on a class through several versions, you are bound to accumulate certain assumptions on how the class works, even if those things aren't explicitly called out. Since I just started playing a hunter, the skirmisher trick issue and some of the primal companion issues are very relevant to me. Your mileage may vary.

It certainly isn't the worst product paizo has ever published, that honor goes certainly to Gnomes of Golaron, soooo mannnny colors .....^^

1 to 50 of 1,106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.