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. RPG Superstar 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,162 posts (2,512 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Undead Mich wrote:
As a Magic player, I've noticed a definite sense of superiority from RPG players, It kept me out of the hobby for a long time, until a friend invited me into his home game.
i think role players and card players are on that mutual level of "thinks they're not a geeky as" level of the chart...

Yeah it is nice too look towards other people and think "at least I am not that nerdy", my only problem is that I am part of too many groups: I played WOW excessively, I play MTG, I watched the old Pokemon anime, I watched entirely to much MLP, I watch way to much anime in general, read comic books, novels, play MOBAS... and watch Dr. Who...

Really the only group of Nerds where I don't have anything to talk about are sport nerds, and even then talking about certain martial arts works.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hollister wrote:

I also think it is a good idea to feed your GM. Preferably tacos. All GMs, everywhere, appreciate tacos, and this helps them to properly distinguish a '20' from a '2'.

So please, give your GM tacos. It's the right thing to do.

Yes, it is the safe thing to do. GMs don't kill players, players who fail to feed their GMs kill players ^^

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
Is it? Is it ok for them to attack with other weapons?

I would have to check the FAQ :

PFS FAQ wrote:

Can my animal companion or familiar wear or use magic items?
It is intended that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items. An animal companion could benefit from an item with a continuous magical effect like an amulet of natural armor if its master equipped the item for the animal companion. [b] Animal companions of any type may not use manufactured weapons.[/b

Animal companions are also limited by their individual anatomies. In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, animal companions always have access to barding and neck-slot items so long as they have the anatomy. For example, a horse and pig can always have access to barding and neck-slot items. A snake does not have access to either. However, an item called out to be used by a specific animal is usable by that animal regardless of slot.

Additionally, animal companions have access to magical item slots, in addition to barding and neck, as listed on the inside front cover of the Animal Archive so long as they select the Extra Item Slot feat. The Animal Magic Item Slots table found in Animal Archive is not a legal except under the following conditions. First, an animal companion, familiar, or bonded mount, may choose one slot listed under its body type when taking the Extra Item Slot feat (this feat may be taken multiple times, each time selecting a different available magic item slot based on the creature’s anatomy). Second, access to specific magic item slots may be granted at a later date by another legal source. If you do not own a copy of the Animal Archive, your animal companion may only use barding and neck-slot items.

An animal or familiar has to have an intelligence of 3+ to activate an ioun stone. If the animal or familiar has less than a 3 intelligence, they may not activate an ioun stone.

The brownie, faerie dragon, imp, lyrakien azata, mephit, quasit, sprite familiars, granted by the Improved Familiar feat, use the Biped (hands) section of the chart. The carbuncle and voidworm protean, familiars granted by the Improved Familiar feat, uses the Serpentine section of the chart. If you do not own a copy of the Animal Archive, your animal companion may only use barding and neck-slot items.

RAW is pretty clear, as long as you have the right physiology, you can use manufactured weapons, unles you are an animal companion.

And frankly considering the fact that animal companions are usually quite small and lack proficiency, I don't see the problem, especially since using your familiar in combat puts it in real danger.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:

The guy is talking about a monkey. Monkeys have tails.

Where did a tiefling come into play?

Tiefling ancestry is a wee bit complicated I am told.^^

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is currently scheduled, that we will learn what makes it into PFS on Monday the 27. in the PFS blog.

Aside from that, the new Barbarian and the other class are alternative options.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well it is certainly no riddle why he got his 5th Star. Congratulations !

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Some people might argue, that the old rogue is a trap option, and personally I somewhat agree, but people will still be able to make bad characters, or play decent characters badly.

Removing material from the CRB, will do nothing but make the game more unattractive to start for new players, and communicating that whole classes from the damn CRB aren't PFS legal is ... not a conversation I want to have.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There really is no distinct reason to remove the original barbarian, monk and rogue.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is utterly nit picky, but I might as well just mention it:

Flurry of blows requires and unarmed strike or a monk weapon.

Unarmed strike lists the following options: fists, elbows, knees, and feet.

Style Strike, can be used when using flurry of blows, and the monk has to designate an unarmed strike to use as a style strike.

Most style strikes mention elbows, feet or kicks, but Head-Butt requires the use of a head-butt.... but a monk can't actually deal unarmed strike damage with his head. The Style strike description mentions "resolve the attack as normal" so this head-butt should do damage.

--

I know it is incredibly stupid, and I would not want monks to deliver their unarmed strikes exclusively through head butts... but on the same token, I just want to avoid debates with PFS GMs whether or not that attack only does 1d3 damage and provokes..

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
UndeadMitch wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Alceste008 wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

... after reading a couple of spoiler threads, I am pretty sure, that no matter what happens with the PFS ruling.. we are in for a fun couple of month of arguments.

Everything from "They have taken my will save away, now the class is ruined", to "My Eidolon can no longer pounce at level 1..therefore it is ruined" and "Rogues are no longer terrible, now I have to search for another class to bash... my afternoon is ruined!!!!1!!1!".

Fun for everybody^^

EDIT: And ready yourself for the occult classes, and plenty of GMs complaining about complexity (and players who do not understand their own class)... and Airbenders, and Metalbenders, and Bloodbenders ^^ (actually looking forward to that one).

I really like the new barbarian, rogue, and summoner. I do not ever play monks so no opinion on that one. However, I would rate the rogue as buff, barb as a little buff, and the summoner as a nerf. Still, I like the new summoner for the increased flavor of the eidolon with the templates. The new summoner spell list and evolutions also makes sense. Pounce should not be a 1 point evolution nor haste a second level spell.

I would not mind giving someone like bards haste as a second level spell (or maybe just a personal version), but yeah.

Now I just want to get the book... I am sure there are some nice pictures inside. UM had the Quigong monk pic (love it), ACG hat the Antipaladin kicking a pig... let's just say that I am expecting some unchained people^^

Oh man, the pig kick tied that entire book together!

Well, since I have the pdf (got it Friday.. hours before I had to GM 3 slots at a convention.. ;) ) unchained has plenty a lovely picture (the cover is great since it has chains and unchaining, the class pictures aren't that great since they don't include chains or unchaining... and Sajans nipple tassels are out of place ^^) but the best one seems to be Selah facing a difficult decision ^^

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mystic Lemur wrote:
kinevon wrote:
You could have hit his triggers.

Look. I'm an a-hole and I make no (well, very little) apology for it. But I'm not a Venture Officer. I'm not the "face" of PFS. If I'm a jerk, everyone rolls their eyes and goes on about their business. When someone in a position of leadership is a jerk, it sours people on the Organized Play campaign. "Triggers" or not, Kelly was in the wrong.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
we generally do better, when new players make a new thread and ask specific questions.
No we don't. When we see the same question for the hundredth time, we complain about all the threads asking the same question. Doesn't matter that the new person has never seen the question asked before.

I think we have been doing pretty well when it comes to the area of new players or GMs asking for "directions". Even in the unfortunate cases of "My first PC just died", we tend to be quite positive and helpful.

Those are the important ones, a admit, that we don't do quite as well when it comes to things like "why is that one specific thing not PFS legal, obviously the campaign leadership is against the very concept of fun" or "why not just allow everything", but even then, this community is still far preferable to any kind of comments sections.

And regarding the topic of VCs and VLs and a position of leadership, I think in every volunteer organisation you will find people, who can deal with posting on the internet, and those who don't.
My VO barely reads these forums (to be honest, he is out there GMing PFS..) and my VL does read, but usually does not post, since apparently the little VL tag, makes everything he writes literally the worst thing ever...

Depending on your personal situation, your interactions with VCs and VLs can vary wildly, some may see them every week, but my PFS home group has never met any of them, and that is unlikely to change.

Just because they aren't helpful all the time, is no reason to hold them to an unreasonable standard.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andreas Forster wrote:
WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

Where do you get that from? As far as I see, that's not true.

CRB, on potions wrote:
It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.
Spells with a range of personal target a creature. They target the caster. (Such spells always have the line "Target: You".)

It is well hidden in the magic item creation chapter:

Someone said wrote:

Creating Potions

The creator of a potion needs a level working surface and at least a few containers in which to mix liquids, as well as a source of heat to boil the brew. In addition, he needs ingredients. The costs for materials and ingredients are subsumed in the cost for brewing the potion: 25 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster.

All ingredients and materials used to brew a potion must be fresh and unused. The character must pay the full cost for brewing each potion. (Economies of scale do not apply.)

The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.

Material components are consumed when he begins working, but a focus is not. (a focus used in brewing a potion can be reused.) The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

Time Required Brewing a potion requires 1 day.

Feat(s) Required: Brew Potion.

Skill(s) Required: Spellcraft or Craft (alchemy)

Table: Potion Base Costs By Brewer's Class
Spell Level Cleric, Druid, Wizard Sorcerer Bard Paladin, Ranger*
0 25 gp 25 gp 25 gp —
1st 50 gp 50 gp 50 gp 50 gp
2nd 300 gp 400 gp 400 gp 400 gp
3rd 750 gp 900 gp 1,050 gp 1,050 gp
* Caster level is equal to class level –3.
Prices assume that the potion was made at the minimum caster level. The cost to create a potion is half the base price.

.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Hide behind the mount of dead pig farmers for cover!"

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NerdOfTheYear wrote:

As a Tax Officer in real life, I now have a burning desire to build a Accountomancer for a campaign. Suggestions for class/alignment? I'd like to think I'm lawful good, but I know a lot of people would disagree about Accountomancers :P

Also, echoing everyone else: that goblin is super adorbs.

The Law domain power should be your friend there, random numbers seem like a bad addition to accounting.

Public perception might actually change a bit - even the recent Last Week Tonight episode with John Oliver tried to show that the american IRS isn't evil, just under financed and in dire need of reform.

Last Week Tonight

Of course IRL I have spend more than 10 years of my life in business schools and I am a trained insurance salesman (or if you like funny German words Versicherungskaufman) and while I no longer pratice.... the evil of that particular profession is pretty much permanent. ^^

My profile pic was apparently well chosen^^.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Happy Taxfest, and yeah that goblin is amazing... I might even go so far to say, that we can allow that one into the Pathfinder Society (should feel right at home among us freaks of nature/nurture) .

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
Alex McGuire wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
They already do not require one per the line "unless otherwise specified" and the fact that the book they come from specifies that they don't need one.

There was a pretty long thread on it a few weeks back where no conclusion was found (and yet everyone agreed that Shaman shouldn't need one) so putting an extra two words in the Guide wouldn't be a terrible idea. Remember that Druids, rangers and oracles are also pretty explicit in their class descriptions, yet are listed in the guide.

My idea:

I think we should add the web enhancement's traits to the guide, so that all available traits for Core mode are in one place (and maybe toss in some of the non-campaign traits from the APG that didn't make it in too).

There was a conclusion found. The guy that wrote it said "this is what these words mean." There were just other people that for some reason didn't want to believe him.

Sometimes changing a complicated document, is the preferable option, if it means, that we never have to have certain discussions ever again.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Walter Sheppard wrote:

I'd consider relocating (or replicating) the fame, day job, prestige rewards, spell casting, etc charts to a single sheet in the back that could be printed off and kept handy for game days.

Include all the traits needed for Core play as an addendum to the guide, so literally all anyone needs to play Core is the CRB and Guide.

Include a map of the Inner Sea with regions and capitals in the Guide for reference.

Repeating all the fame, day job etc. tables in a fancy looking page at the end would be a lovely idea.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ok show of hands, who is hitting refresh every 0,5 seconds waiting for the pdfs to magically arrive in their downloads? ^^

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Faction Cards wrote:


SAGE CANDIDATE (7+ goals): The scarab grants the bonuses on saving throws and to Constitution to your allies within 30 feet.
After spending Prestige Points in order to be restored to life, you gain a number of temporary Prestige Points equal to half the
number expended. You may only spend these temporary points to retrain your character (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Campaign
188) before the end of your next adventure, after which time unused points are lost.

Just noticed, this allows characters to spend those temporary Prestige Points to retrain HP... pretty sweet ^^

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

[total speculation]

You will be able to make a free one time leap onto the unchained version if you choose to do so

The barbarians, monk and rogues will live along side each other in relative peace

The old summoner will be grandfathered in, new summoners will be required to be the unchained version.

[/total speculation]

edit: if i wind up being right on the rogues I'll have to start a fund to buy this for new players who want to play a rogue.

I speculate that this speculation is correct, if anything the why the grandfathering would be handled is unclear.

Also since I have read this title way to many times, I have to ask.... when did Paizo turn evil (their creative director is a T-Rex, we should not be surprised)

The Sith Code(the one I like) wrote:

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

EDIT: The fund is a good idea, if they don't bite, just entire them with the chance to play an Angel Summoner, I am told there will still be a sufficient number of butts involved. Once the have bought the book , sneakily remove a couple of pages from their CRBs.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can see myself supporting it, if it is charity based, something like:

"Paizo has decided to support worthwhile charity X, and we are hoping to entice you to help in our effort.
For a limited time we are offering the following boons. "

I think that is the only way I could support Paizo in selling boons, and to be honest even this way only really works with a fitting selection of boons ( I think something like custom order, or GMstar refill works, but not unlocking a race).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jtaylor73003 wrote:
rknop wrote:
In 58 tables of credit as GM, I've only managed to outright kill two characters. (Lots have been below zero.). I'm far from the best tactician, and I'm probably a softie. And, yet, still, if I got to a table and discovered the OP was one of the players, I'd recommend he not play with me. If for no other reason, I worry about the repercussions that would fall on me if something weren't to go right.

What repercussions would you be afraid of???

It this type of response I am concerned I will get if I approach the Game Master about how my first EVER Pathfinder/Pathfinder Society Game went.

Please don't misunderstand me, but as I and others have suggested, confronting that particular GM after your recent experience might not be the best option.

Talk to your Venture Captain, get some more experience and play with other players and GMs (not just talking about PFS here), after that you should be better equipped to talk to that particular GM again.

And to be honest, it happens, sometimes you have a bad experience and never want to play with a particular GM or player again, I am pretty sure that most of the people who have posted here have negative experiences with GMs or fellow players. It happens.

There is no test or any strict requirement to GM Pathfinder Society, after all we are all volunteers who try to keep our hobby alive, of course this means that when it comes to GM you can play with a 35 year RPG veteran or with someone who just bought the Core Rulebook last week... and frankly I am not certain that the veteran would always provide the better experience.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I read that as no stupidly re-leveled wizard spells.

I figured that, but 'originally intended' by who and when? It's an odd wording that implies that the APG spell list was an accident or oversight. Which has been unaddressed for 4 1/2 years.

I mean, if it wasn't the intended spell list, there have been opportunities to errata it. This isn't rewriting the Stealth skill - rearranging a spell list fits on the same page.

I don't know if this is what the section on the Summoner was pointing to, but I'd really like a Summoner who doesn't have a spell list of their own and instead gets a very specified set of spells depending on the nature of their eidolon.

Oh! That'd be a neat idea. Now that you have to pick an eidolon type, you can attach baggage to that choice. Summoners are Spells Known casters, so you can give them bloodline/mystery-like bonus spells known related to their critter.

Angel summoner? Have a searing light! Devil summoner? Darkvision! Demon summoner? Rage! Protean summoner? Entropic shield!

I love the orginal summoner class (and the primal companion hunter archetype) but they aren't exactly balanced. However, I think going full Angel Summoner is a bit crazy.

The other classes might not want to feel like BMX Bandit.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, I guess we will just have to be patient.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would say no, if only to prevent trolls from creating wizards with 0 points point buy.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well good luck, nice to see someone take the issue of recruiting new players seriously ^^

Best wishes to you and your family.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TetsujinOni wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

@Jack: While it is always nice to see players willing to GM boons are a pretty rare thing, and I really would strongly advise against starting to GM at a convention.

Talk to your VL or your VC, they should be able to help you.

Just to be a contrary voice: If you want to GM and think you can run a fun table that rolls with the players and shows people a good time, and there's a con that wants GMs - go for it.

(I started my 3.x GMing career by running an APL 10 game in Living Greyhawk in one of the high-crunch regions. Nothing much that PCs come up with these days seems shocking...)

I guess this is one of those YMMV situations, when I think of conventions it's usually in the terms of large rooms with a lot of tables in them. Other loud tables are certainly an issue.

That said PFS only events should be far better than convention tables, where some or all of your players have limited/no experience with the D20 system and just want to try it.

---

Oh and before I forget it, in the last 10 years of visiting conventions I had some awfully terrible games and GMs. To badly paraphrase Order of the Stick "A cup of really terrible coffee makes you remember all the times you actually drank good coffee. Your Brain is pretty much trying to remember everything that is not the "coffee" you are currently drinking".

So yeah, even if you come to the conclusion, that your first GM experience was a complete and utter fail... there will still be plenty of worse GMs out there ^^

However GMing requires a certain amount of preparation (bringing the chronicle sheets is pretty much the most important part) so you might want to devote some time to your preparation...... ..... .... is this a bad time to mention that I arrived at the last convention with no less than 4 bags (one of them on wheels)?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


5) At this point I'm pretty down on Mythic. A few folks in particular on these boards really wore me down and made me really frustrated and unhappy wiht how Wrath turned out. A classic case of the vocal minority having a STRONG influence on things, as it were. I suspect we'll continue to use mythic on monsters now and then, but at this point, I'm like 98% convinced those rules belong to the GM and not to the players. That, and the fact that there really wasn't a lot of thought put in during the playtest about how mythic impacts high level play, which was PRECISELY what I wanted it for, was frustrating. Yeah, I am indeed bitter about it.

Yeah sorry about that, I and a couple of other players really fell in love with the idea of mythic, and they way it was executed (as an additional system that can be added to low and/or high level play).

Unfortunately this (IMO) made it pretty hard to balance, since it ended up working as a kind of multiplier, it worked fine for groups with a moderate amount of system masters, but could spiral out of control when players had high system mastery. I guess that is just the nature of the beast, one size fits all doesn't really work (of course reducing point buy, XP and mythic tiers is always an option).

As written mythic definitely works for monsters and can help GMs like me to create memorable encounters.

It is also a very nice option to replace high level options for those GMs/players who don't think that those high level spells fit their particular game.

With a bit of hindsight (I haven looked in that corner of the forum in quite some time, and I have discovered PFS several months ago and could not be happier) I think that WotR is thematically one of my favorite adventure paths, and I can recommend part 1 without hesitation (the writing and the NPCs really work for me). The other parts do benefit from some tweaking, but that is true for almost all things including my own cooking and similar epic enterprises.

Mythic adventures (a book I ended up buying several times for my players) is a good tool, but isn't all that easy to use, and could use some fine tuning. Since I create all the characters for my home group with my players, this really was not an issue for me, and I have always felt empowered to limit options and make rulings when things are unclear.
Giving the choice of mythic to the GM certainly will works for some groups.

If you ever find yourself in a situation where you and a couple of designers find yourself with a couple of days of free time (after developing a books went exceedingly smooth and quick), we would certainly appreciated something like a 2-3 page pdf to attempt to balance the exploding numbers a bit.

I really liked the implementation of mythic in Iron Gods, and I am looking forward to trying the PFS scenarios with it.

---

I feel the need to apologize again, for all the drama in the WotR area, and hope, that you can find some solace in the fact, that the only reason that this exploded in the way that it did, is the fact that this meant a lot to a large number of people. The ability to make people care so much, shows that Paizo has a way to tell some very compelling stories, and create fun rules material.

My previous WotR group is on permanent hiatus (has nothing to do with mythic, I can't just get that group to play often enough) but I am actually still willing to give this another try.

Sometimes system work and sometimes they don't and I appreciate the fact, that Paizo is still willing to try even if it doesn't end up working perfectly every time. I feel that this was a learning experience for everybody involved, and that current products are already benefiting from the lessions learned.

---

So just keep up the good work, I have to go back to preparing Emerald Spire. I will be running it as a kind of Dungeon Run at a local convention this weekend, and while it is unlikely that they will reach your level... I prefer to be ready ^^

EDIT:PS I love the pawns, I recently managed to use PFS as a reason to buy all the Bestiary Boxes, the NPC box and the Inner Sea Box (love the fact, that I now have the ACG pregens as proper pawns, in my experience pawns have a very positive effect on new players).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In cases like this it is pretty useful to cite the source of the rules item in question, this creature seems to come from Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Belkzen, Hold of the Orc Hordes.

Since you are not arguing to allow the CR13 version in into the game lets compare

Cat, Big from the CRB wrote:

Cat, Big

Starting Statistics

Size Medium; Speed 40 ft.; AC +1 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 13, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 2, Wis 15, Cha 10; Special Attacks rake (1d4); Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

7th-Level Advancement

Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8), 2 claws (1d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Attacks grab, pounce, rake (1d6).

and

Warcat wrote:

Source: Hold of the Orc Hordes

Starting Statistics

Size Medium; Speed 40 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 15, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 2, Wis 11, Cha 5; Special Attacks rake (1d4); SQ low-light vision, scent.

7th-Level Advancement

Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8), 2 claws (1d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Attacks grab, pounce, rake (1d6).

It is compairable to the CRB big cat, the different stat allocations really are not that relevant but the +4 natural armor bonus really kills the idea.

Big cats are already pretty awesome, and I would be hard pressed not to take the Warcat every time, even as a hunter where the animal companion's wisdom modifier is kinda relevant.

And while d20pfsrd doesn't seem to mention a racial limit, I assume that these cats are supposed to be an Orc only option.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Sothal wrote:

Don't know as much about the rest of the companion, but I LOVE the back inside cover: "Combat options overview"!

Detailing what is what type of action, and detailing the differences between those: Free action, swift action, attack action, melee action, standard action, and full-round action.

That page alone is a heaven-sent.

Printing out this one for my players and myself...

Damn, that actually sounds terrific.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kinevon wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
David Higaki wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Naked: We're going to need to see your social security number sir...
But I'm a vow of poverty monk!
Oh that is a totally different case, you just get sanctioned under the mental health act until your delusions stop ^^
I thought that they got the full cavity search to make sure they don't have anything they aren't supposed to have, like a bankbook from the Bank of Abadar, secreted on their person...

And if they still don't trust you... they give you stuff to take away your poverty powers

Mergy wrote:
David Higaki wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Naked: We're going to need to see your social security number sir...
But I'm a vow of poverty monk!
Hey, if you want to have a vow of poverty, you had better own a copy of Ultimate Magic. No poverty without property.

slow clap

But also begs the question, you don't actually own the pdf, you more of less have a license to use it, so can VOP characters own licenses, patents or rights? Can the hold a copyright?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Roberts wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.

Essentially this is like changing something via Errata and then changing it back in the next one.

Emphasis mine.

To say it was unintended would be false. There was a specific phrase on the old FAQ that said they understand exactly what was going to happen with that FAQ.

Oh why did I post, I have plenty of scenarios and Emerald Spire to prep . ;(

I said unintended cause this specific way to qualify for prestige classes and feats like arcane strike, were never intended by the authors of those prestige classes.
EK didn't require a BAB (unlike Arcane Archer) since previously we had not class or race that could get early entry.
And considering the reaction of James Jacobs when it came to the possibility of early entry into the Evangelist class, I am pretty sure, that this he didn't intent it either.

It is quite likely that the person(s) who made this decision, had a reasoning to do so, but I don't think everyone at Paizo was thrilled by it.

That is not a value judgement regarding the "lacking?) power of prestige classes, rather than... sometimes they cause a mess.
I remember that it took quite a number of CRB Errata editions to remove that "elf only" requirement from the arcane archer, months after they mentioned it on the forums.

BigDTBone wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.

I simply do not understand how the word "loophole" reconciles with this statement:

PDT wrote:
The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Can you explain it to me? How can someone read the FAQ and come to the conclusion that early entry wasn't the intention of the PDT?

If could argue that they realized that this causes a weird situation regarding the default minimum character level for prestige classes and they even mentioned it in the FAQ. Whether this counts as a loopwhole or not, is really more a matter of definition.

Thank for quite it btw, since this shows that apparently even they didn't know all the possible results of this change (the vast majority of FAQs don't include this language).

I really don't know what caused the first FAQ and what caused the second one (although telling James Jacobs that he is not a rules authority in this case... most likely has an effect).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
trik wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It was explicitly in the FAQ.

Well, that's a pretty bad FAQ entry then and probably should have never existed in the first place. That's someone not doing their job... at least not well.

However, the part that I fundamentally disagree with remains. Not placing fun as the primary objective of a game, including Pathfinder, is my objection. I understand that not everyone will be happy with every decision, but essentially screwing over a segment of the gaming population when other alternatives exist in which no one would feel cheated goes completely against the entire purpose of a game.

That said, it's not exactly this specific decision (it doesn't even affect any of my characters), but the entire philosophy of decision making. If fun isn't held as the absolute most important part of the game, who's to say that future decisions won't stomp all over my fun?

Well I think you are forgetting the large number of players who were not happy with that FAQ.

Want to play a Mythic Theurge, and Eldritch Knight etc. better be from a rather small subset of the available races and or classes .. if you don't well people will call you out on it "Why aren't you [enter option], your way to build this character is just stupid".

Not unlike the problem summoners have with haste.

Some players really don't like their viable options limited like this.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would prefer a solution that does not marginalize melee characters, with combat trained animals, animal companions (I am playing a hunter, and more often than not the other melee characters like having it there, if only to soak a couple of hits) and summoned monsters.

So yeah, I haven't seen this as a problem yet, so I am a bit on the fence if we really need a ruling on this. Of course those animals offer some interesting information when it comes to PVP and don't be a jerk.
Like a wizard fireballing the enemies and having to target the animals since they aren't clever enough to avoid it, and the user doesn't bother to spend the action to order them to retreat.

Also there is at least one scenario with enemy spellcasters with dominate animal.. fun for everybody^^

EDIT: I really would like a large tiger as a mount, but that doesn't seem to be an option outside of having an animal companion.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ok I really have to ask, what character is "ruined" ? It seems that most of those characters will be about level 3-4 with a suboptimal stat allocation.

So at this point they have two choices, either continue on their path to MT or retrain one level, and have slightly less than perfect stat allocations (and not even that if you go Oracle/Sorcerer, or Cleric/Sorcerer with the right bloodline).

That is really not ruined, I recently played with a sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster and that player had to go through a valley of suck to get there.

It might be quite bad for your proposed concept, but from a mechanical point of view, the character is hardly "ruined".

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hrothdane wrote:
I would probably be fine ruling that a brawling mithral breastplate works in a home game, but there is definitely table variation on it in PFS. It's hazy enough that a GM might (and I have seen one do so) say it doesnt work.

Yeah, but to be honest there are a number of unclear topics where you might hit table variation, obviously this is one of them.

I would accept it as PFS GM, but I am certain that a couple of others will not, especially once they understand, that this armor enhancement improves damage.

Imbicatus wrote:

Bracer of armor are armor, and are light. A bracer is a synonym for vambrace, which is piecemeal armor for the arms. I know there is no rules connection between bracers and light armor, but Bracers are able to accept armor enhancements, and are the lightest of light armors because they are not encumbering at all. I know this is not RAW. This is personal opinion, nothing more.

That said, Mithral armor is still Medium for proficiency. It doesn't make sense that an enchantment that only works on light armor would work on armor that is only light for the purposes of penalties, but still requires medium proficiency.

No they are not, a monk can't even use a haramaki or similar armor, and bracers of armor don't appear on any list of armors.

And regarding your second point, you would have not problem with an elven chain, but a mithral chainmail is a no go ? (The difference is 1000 G and it does not even require the proficiency).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am currently working at some kind of setup for conventions, I plan to offer a table at [http://cavecon.de/]Cave-Con in Aschaffenburg, Germany[/url] and to give the players the chance to brave the emerald spire as deep as they can get.
The level of RP from my side will quite likely be minimal, unless the group likes or requires it for a better experience.

I hope to get a table for about 12-14 hours and plan to give the players about 15-20 min to level and shop between the separate maps. Since this would seem like an opportune time for old players to drop out, and for new players to join (no idea how often this will actually end up happening), I decided to post some kind of scoreboards in the public area, so others can see our progress.

Page 19 has an excellent picture for that sheet, I will have to alter it a bit, and I currently expect, them not to reach level 16. That may be possible in 3 days but not in my currently planned time slot. And since my VO will quite likely be there,directing complaints about me to my VO will be quite easy ^^.

In any case I will share it once it is done, even if I have to replace the picture from the AP with something ridiculous.

EDIT: Found a picture of the spire in this blog Paizo Blog - Behind the Emerald Spire.
So I assume that I will be able to share it.
@Schattenstern: Could you maybe enable private messages?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Disclaimer: Thus far I have successfully avoided getting a player boon by virtue of not going to many conventions.

That said, after playing for a couple of months, I noticed that the nature of chronicles leads to some ... unpleasant results. Since researching chronicle rewards before you play a scenario is regarded badly (personally I expect it to lead to some unfortunate group compositions, when suddenly everybody is an archer trying to get the keen longbow).

And while GMing the scenarios is a solution for a small number of players, obviously many of us can't actually offer a scenario in some areas.

The following player boon ideas could benefit players who have been unlucky enough to have their group slip into a lower tier (despite their own character fitting into a higher tier), and in those cases where a very attractive item is on a chronicle owned by a character, that will never buy it.

Upgrade Chronicle - Shopping wrote:

A great number of stories change in the retelling, the monsters become fiercer and the traps more deadly.

Chose a previously earned chronicle, if you didn't get access to all the items on the chronicle sheet, you can expend this boon to gain access to all purchase able items on the sheet.
This doesn't allow you to reset the purchase limit on limited items, but it will allow you to buy the items your party missed in the scenario and those locked to a higher tier of play.

This boon does not improve other rewards on the chronicle (like the limited use of an item for a scenario etc.)

Requiring GM changes/documentation on this boon and the original chronicle.

Improved Rewards wrote:

You can use this chronicle when you finish a scenario, or use it later with an additional 5 point PP cost.

If you successfully finish the scenario, but boons aren't unlocked on the chronicle sheet (due to your tier), you can expend this boon to modify that chronicle sheet, to give you the rewards of finishing the scenario in the highest tier.

Shopping party wrote:

Choose a chronicle owned by another (living) character under the same PFS number (add a field for the GM to add the character number and chronicle number), you may buy items from that chronicle sheet as if your character had earned the chronicles herself.

It is quite early in the morning so the grammar could use a lot of work, but I really didn't want to further procrastinate this post. And obviously I didn't include all the necessary caveats to properly protect those boons against abuse just yet, in any case I doubt, that I have the necessary experience with the available chronicle sheets.

In any case, I am sure that you have other awesome ideas for boons, and I would be delighted to hear them.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well considering that drawing a huge sword from a sheath on your back, does not provoke an attack of opportunity and can pretty much always be done as a move action, realism left the building some time ago. So that argument really should not bother us too much.

-

Then lets look at staffs, rods and wands. Staffs quite often can be used as quarterstaff, and in the cases where it is not case, the reason seems to be more fluff based than based on a mechanical advantage.
I have serious reservations regarding GMs asking for intent, and penalizing players based on that intent.

There should be no mechanical difference between a character drawing his +1 quarterstaff with the intent to hit someone (if only to get the benefit of combat expertise) and a character drawing a staff to obliterate her enemies with the power of the fire spirits.

The same should be true for rods (at the very least those that can be used as proper weapons, but then again there should be little appreciable difference, and retrieving it from something like your belt or a sheath should pose no problems.

Wands are specially called out in the original documentation, but compare quite well to daggers, and some of the blunt monk weapons.
Obviously since even using a wand does not provoke an attack of opportunity, I would argue that it is fair game.

I am not entirely happy, that we don't have and item like a wand bracer - and while the spring loaded wrist sheath currently serves to give easy access to usually no more than 2 wands, is uses a swift action, and seems so good and under priced to be almost mandatory.

-

The quick draw feat is similar, but covers a different area, and no one actually asks to let characters draw things like potions as a free action.

-

This really question really only applies to characters taking a move a action, and considering the number of move actions on page 183 of the CRB, in some cases there should be no added problem (remember that you can draw a weapon with any of these, if you have the BAB, that fact is not currently under discussion):

Move: Obviously I have a pretty high BAB, since have quite often retrieved my phone from my jacket or pants pocket without stopping moving. While you walk somewhere and have re required number of hands, why not, unless you have to interact with a container like a scroll case (with more than one scroll in it).

--

I thin the really relevant part of the rules consists of:

quote wrote:

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects [b] carried in easy reach, such as wands./b] If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

If a character e.g wears a bandolier or a bandoleer like the adventurers sash, with a loop tho secure their wands, I would call that sufficiently easy access. Of course this means that those items are also prime target for certain combat maneuvers, namely dirty trick, sunder and steal.

That seems like a fare exchange.

Also I would like to add the following item to this discussion:

Efficient Quiver wrote:

Efficient Quiver
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th

Slot —; Price 1,800 gp; Weight 2 lbs.

Description
This appears to be a typical arrow container capable of holding about 20 arrows. It has three distinct portions, each with a nondimensional space allowing it to store far more than would normally be possible.

The first and smallest one can contain up to 60 objects of the same general size and shape as an arrow. The second slightly longer compartment holds up to 18 objects of the same general size and shape As a javelin. The third and longest portion of the case contains as many as 6 objects of the same general size and shape as a bow (spears, staffs, or the like). Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can quickly produce any item she wishes that is within the quiver, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard. The efficient quiver weighs the same no matter what's placed inside it.

Construction Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, secret chest; Cost 900 gp

While it should not be required, this would deal with the argument of drawing something from a sheath. However, not unlike the gloves of storing, this item is also priced as an extra dimensional container.

--

Regarding ammunition and shuriken, I just want to point out that I can flurry and throw a pretty high number of tangleshot shuriken per round ... so moving while drawing a proper tanglefoot bag and throwing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

*shrug* I've no PCs impacted by the ruling, but it makes sense.

As to the Tiefling/Aasimar thing...
** spoiler omitted **

Though the idea of a pit spawn bard, who takes spell focus enchantment and specializes in those kind of spells, is funny. "I can't help it I'm good at making friends and seducing people... succubus blood."

Edit: I am sad that it closes the rogue/arcane strike trick. (minor magic/major magic, not racial SLAs) since they could use the damage bump and a pure rogue has little use for swift actions.

Essentially you have the benefit of two race boons each, and in some regions they are a bit hard to get, so you will always have the option to remake that character into something else, but new players lack that option.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:


Now is the future.

If this is the future, where is my hover-board, and my jet pack?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kifaru wrote:
BretI wrote:
The person who wears a dark cloak over them and doesn't want anyone to know what race they are is still not a good idea.
I see comments like this come up on a regular basis in this thread. I completely agree that a player that came to the table and refused to reveal any info about their character would be annoying and disruptive to the table. But I've never actually seen a player try to pull something like this. Has anyone actually seen this? The people I see in this thread talking about their "deceptive" character are usually pretty upfront about the general roll and tactics of their character, and are only vague on a few of the particulars. Now, some may still find this annoying or even unacceptable, but it is not really fair to equate a player that is reluctant to share the mechanics of how their character works to "a cloaked stranger that refuses to communicate in any way" kind of player.

Well I think the example with the Dhampir PC upthread is as bad as it gets, and even in that case the chance of killing a friendly character with a CLW is pretty remote.

The nasty part of me actually hopes that this happens some day, only to read the "Is this PVP" discussion in the PFS boards. Seems like prime popcorn time ^^

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Flutter wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
To put it simple you are using the blood of devils to call upon the very powers of hell to strengthen you .... what god or power of good would be cool with that?

You can use a potion of unholy water, so that would be just evil, rather than you know hellish.

Also I regularly use the power of bovine blood in my rare steaks to use the power of wild animals to strengthen me ... so far I have felt no longer lasting alignment changes (just a certain sense of self loathing when I am on a carb free diet)^^

*tap tap tapss pointy stick*

.... I get amazing rates on carnivore feed, and I share with my large cat... she can't eat aspis agent every day. Those are a sometimes food.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kifaru wrote:

From the majority of comments I've seen in this thread, it really looks like society games are primarily a mechanics based war game.

When I first started playing D&D way back in the day, the DMs I played with actively discouraged showing anyone else your character sheet. Part of the roll playing process was learning about the other characters. You were encouraged to interact with each other in character to learn more about who you were playing with. When the other characters in the game are reduced to a pile of stats and attributes, they are kind of diminished. Suddenly it like "why interact with that guy? I already know everything about him."

Sorry, but you have just been ordered to join 3-4 other characters on a mission with at least a 95 % chance of combat and you are likely never to see those people again after that mission. You need to know their tactical capabilities right now to increase your chance to survive the mission...why would you not try to get as much relevant information as prossible?

Ye olde school D&D and PFS are two very different things.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

I used to tell people my PCs' classes.

With my first character, I used to say "I'm a fighter". But then people kept assuming he was stupid, despite his 13 INT and 12 WIS.

With my kitsune arcane duelist bard who has no ranks in any Perform skills, I used to say "bard". But then people would keep getting in front of me and blocking me from attacking. I switched to saying "arcane duelist bard", and it helped a little, but I'd still have people ask "And are you still singing?" even though the character has nothing to do with music at all and I literally howled out loud at the table to initiate Inspire Courage. Eventually I switched to just saying "arcane duelist" and hoped they didn't ask what that was.

With my melee cleric of Iomedae, I used to say "cleric", but then (like with the bard), people kept trying to relegate me to the back rank, even when I had the highest AC and attack bonus at the table (which did happen sometimes). Then I tried saying "melee cleric" or "battle cleric". Not much changed. A couple of times, I tried just introducing him as "Thomas the Tiefling Hero!" and giving a physical description with emphasis on armor and weapons, and relying on short attention spans to get people to move on without noticing I hadn't mentioned his class. Those were sometimes my smoothest games, despite occasionally being referred to as a paladin.

I'm still trying to decide how best to introduce my bloodrager, so I've been defaulting to "bloodrager". Then I get weird looks when I act like a human being and have the best Diplomacy at the table, and occasionally even have people preemptively trying to protect NPCs and/or their personal property against the reckless destruction they seem to assume will be coming out any second.

Some of the people in this thread say it's not "cooperative" to withhold your class name from your tablemates, but my experience says that only applies if you're playing the same tired cliches that people lazily associate with each class. Play anything else, and...

... if in doubt just hand them your character and let them read. Or be useful and describe your character in a way, that is useful for other characters.

Something like: I am playing a fighter, and since he somehow is the most intelligent character in the group, I am the leader. Who wants to argue with the guy with the big sword? ^^

Or: I am playing a kitsune arcane duelist buffer, I am a frontline character and might inspire your characters with my awesome heroics. If you are standing in front of me, chances are that I won't be able to have heroics to inspire you, so please be considerate.

Or: I am playing something like a warpriest, I can heal in combat, but I really don't want to, so don't try to force me by ruining your AC. My character is confident in her ability to enter melee and support the other front line characters, and will actively try to support you there.

Or: I am playing a very nice character with apparently some serious anger problems and some kind of bloodline. I can use a useful range of wands from level 1, and might even be able to use surprise our enemies with my cool bloodline powers. Please don't assume, that I will fit the cliche of the stupid unlearned barbarian, cause that will not be me.

Something like this, but I think the bigger issue is not answering properly to straight questions.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This might be unpopular, but I would like to judge people based on their actions.

If my paladin and another player's character are in melee combat, he gets hit (even better when said character didn't wear armor for RP reasons) and cries for healing, so my paladin has to drop her sword, take out her wand of CLW and heal the other character.

So far no real problem there, it only becomes one, if/once I learn that said player is actually playing a cleric and could have used his own wand/resources to heal. But of course hitting people is more fun, especially while not wearing armor to show everyone your physique (it worked for Conan the Barbarian apparently).

It this case I am less inclined to be helpful.

As always I don't require every player to have read and memorized all the basic powergaming documentation, but when your behavior threatens the group...

Other corner cases could come up when, e.g. a player character can't receive divine/arcane spells and the bard/cleric turned out to be a cleric/bard.

Oh and quite often, it turns out that characters with obscure class abilities are doing something wrong.

Disclaimer: This hasn't actually happened to me, usually when I ask a player a direct question, I get a direct answer. However, if someone lies to my character in character about his ability to use that scroll of raise dead.. that has OOC consequences.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
- The parry roll, does cost an attack of opportunity (with isn't ideal for STR based Swashbucklers) but is in fact not an attack of opportunity.
It might as well be. Anything that applies to AoOs applies to the parry as well. "The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity."

After doing some research and finding a developer commentary, I am forced to agree with you. I have no ideal why they decided to go this way.

I can't name if right now, but I would not be surprised to find some feats that give frankly outrageous bonuses on attack of opportunity attack rolls. I know that there is this:

animal focus wrote:

Snake: The creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls when
making attacks of opportunity and a +2 dodge bonus to AC
against attacks of opportunity. These bonuses increase to
+4 at 8th level and +6 at 15th level.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

Let me go a bit into detail on the ACG classes that I like the most: the Investigator and the Slayer. The pair of them are a proper solution for "the Rogue Problem".

Thank you for that very insightful post.

snickersimba wrote:

Well, that depends on the sanity and local law enforcement and regulations about assault with hammers in the area Mr. Hirsch.

If Germany is incredibly lax about beating people to death with hammers and hammer vandalisim, then that is one hell of a place.

Your straw man argument fails explicitly.

Well, I guess in the US and a number of other countries you would have to change it to:

If you give someone a tank/drone, chances are he will use it when you tell them to get groceries/bring out the trash ^^

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The old versions are no longer available.

And it is worth mentioning, that only select portions of that module are available in PFS, you will have to fill in the blanks with other scenarios/modules.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deusvult wrote:

When ACG first came out, my provisional opinion was:

We get classes that are essentially an X/Y multiclass? Well, what's the point, we could already multiclass X and Y. If they're no better than the multiclass, the book is a waste of money. If the gestalt hybrid is better than the multiclass, then we've got bloat. The book's very premise is a lose/lose proposition.

6+ months on, my opinion has become:

There's a few neat ideas, sure. IMO those gems would have been put to better use in a rebooted CRB. As it is, ACG is just another example of rules bloat.

Rebooting the CRB - outside of a PF2, to clear up some of those old sacred cows and assumptions - doesn't seem to be a great idea, since so much would have to be reprinted.

The good thing about those new classes, is that they work.
Player wants to be a battle priest - just hand them the warpriest.

And of course GMs outside of PFS are empowered to remove any number of options from their game.

Before the ACG was published, the shopping experience was something like this:

Customer: Hi, I would like to kick and headbutt people and get some of those funky shurikens.

Sales Clerk: Well we have this wonderful Monk package right over there, it comes with kicking, some funky weapons and the ability to wade naked into combat, also you get spiritual power, the ability to stun people, become immune to alcohol .... (this continues for quite some time)

Customer: What.. what? Why would I even want all that, I only want to kick people until my my foot imprint replaces their memory of their mothers face... I don't really want all the mystical stuff.

Sales Clerk: I am sorry but we only have the one bundle, however we as a store pride our self on customer satisfaction.
He bows down under the counter and comes up with a massive stack of forms
Well let me tell you about the number of archetypes we offer, I am entirely confident, after perusing the available number of options, we should be able to find a solution, or at the very least a legal combination of options that ..... (this continues for several minutes)

Customer:..... has left the store some time ago

1 to 50 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.