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

Serisan's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,385 posts (2,391 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 2,385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
bdk86 wrote:

tl;dr The system is starting to work as intended, which is that you won't get every Prestige Point possible. And it will only work if people run as written.

Which apparently led to a *bunch of questioning* at GenCon during one of the specials because not enough of the tables did the secondary success condition.

So it does happen even during specials.

Actually, come to think of it, if there's a scenario that some of the players have GM'd before, and they deliberately *tank* the secondary mission objective or the GM de-emphasizes it so the table doesn't know it's an option and therefore is 'invisible' to the players, should the players who haven't played it before be punished for that?

** spoiler omitted **

Does the player tank it because they've run it, or because it's in-character for them to do so?


Nefreet wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Most of the scenario was really good. I took exception with the SSC.


Joe Ducey wrote:

I'm not sure if you meant to have a question or something there, but I'm guessing this is what you are looking for.

I think faction missions determining second prestige led to the most failures to get both PP.

Secondary Success condition document for older scenarios is somewhere in the middle, highly dependent on the scenario.

More recent scenarios the least common for failing to earn a second prestige point.

This is just my feel of the situation I've never taken any data to back it up.

I think that depends heavily on the scenario. My interpretation:

  • Faction missions had the benefit of the player knowing exactly what they needed to do - it was always very clear, which was kind of a detriment to the story at times due to "omniscient faction leader syndrome." If I saw failure in these, it was because I literally couldn't manage the task provided for some reason.
  • Older scenarios that fell under the Secondary Success Condition doc were extremely hit or miss. Many times, the secondary condition was not intuitive to the party because the scenario wasn't written for it. Other times, it was literally a no-brainer.
  • Recent scenarios are usually intuitive, but there are some that come to mind that very specifically weren't intuitive.

Example for recent scenario with unintuitive SSC:
Bronze House Reprisal requires a certain specific piece of evidence be found for the SSC, but there are many ways of approaching the area that won't lead you to that piece of evidence. When I played, for example, we broke in through the vault, found the giant statue + other things, and decided that this was more than enough evidence to prove the crime. We covered up our escape and came back with guards to seize the evidence, but failed to recover the important piece of evidence as a result. It was in no way evident that we needed to do any more than we did based on the way we approached the scenario and this was with a very good GM running the show.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
If a saddle was sundered I think the most reasonable decision would be to have the rider make a ride check to remain on the mount.

At what DC? This is an undefined scenario within the rules set. When you're riding with a saddle, you're basically riding a saddle and assuming it's attached to the horse. Sundering the saddle breaks that assumption.

If we base this on realism, we're probably looking at DC 30-40 or so. Riding bareback is SIGNIFICANTLY easier than riding with a broken or loose saddle. I think a comparably difficult task would be climbing a greased vertical wall with no hand holds.

Another reasonable option might be a Reflex save, but again, we have no basis within the rules to determine the DC.

alexd1976 wrote:

I like the idea of just tripping the horse... but does that work with large sized/four limbs?

Really, why even waste the action? Unless it is a paladins mount/animal companion, just kill the damn horse.

If you have ki throw, you trip the rider and move him to another square that's adjacent to you...unless you're Mongo, that is.

Claxon wrote:
Baval wrote:
FLite wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Baval wrote:
Couldnt you just sunder or disarm the saddle to make the rider fall off without questionable interpretations?
No, probably not. Saddles aren't required to stay on the mount, they just make it more comfortable and easier. If you sunder the saddle the rider should probably get a Ride check to stay on the mount. Currently there are no rules to cover what should happen if you sunder the saddle and it would need to be made up.
Admittedly at +5 DC (for riding bareback)

more than that i would think. Without the straps youd end up with a piece of leather between you and the horse, making it much harder to grip with your knees, especially since youre now not only trying to keep yourself up, but the weight of the saddle and anything attached to it as well.

For example, this saddle is only loose and not even heavy

Well, unfortunately for you, you are incorrect.

Ride Skill wrote:
Special: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks.
The penalty is only a -5 to ride checks, so a worse case scenario is basically a DC 10 to stay in the saddle.

The rider would not be riding bareback. They would be riding on a destroyed saddle. The rules are silent on this particular possibility.

We have never gotten an official clarification. -source#1 er-feat#1 alds#1

The ability can be parsed either way. The closest thing to a clarification is that the PFS pregen skald apparently states that it cannot share a rage power it gained from the feat. Mark Seifter even commented that it should be a FAQ in his Ask Anything thread, but a FAQ has never been written, nor has the question been resolved in the July 2015 errata document.

In short, we don't know.

Divination gets you the ol' Eye of Kilrogg at level 5. While it is blocked by doors, I just had a scenario completely scouted before the party entered.

claudekennilol wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
As far as I am aware, there are no rules for forcibly dismounting somebody. Which means that it is up to the GM.
THIS is the only defined way that I'm aware of to accomplish it.

Trip + Ki Throw is also a rules-legal way to do it, though not explicit like Unseat.

There's no option that drops the armor type like Mithral that a druid can use. You might consider a Darkleaf Leather Lamellar, which is light.

I think this is a really interesting build overall, particularly once it hits 7 and gets Greater Overrun to let you restart your pain train. That said, how do you realistically deal with enemies that have DR 5/- or higher CMDs vs bull rush? It seems like these are the obvious immediate weaknesses of the build. Additionally, do you build into Boots of Striding and Springing or something else for movement speed to ensure that you don't run out of movement during your bull rush and overrun shenanigans?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its not how good it is vs a wizard that matters, its how good it is vs another magus or another archer , the niche their fulfilling.

It is when people make the argument that it's both an archer and a god-wizard.


Ragoz wrote:
Barton "Bart" Oliver wrote:
Math Stuff

I think a more normal named bullet looks something like this:


+5 Enhancement from pool + weapon
+6 Deadly Aim
+2 STR
+1 Precise
+2d6 Gravity Bow

That's for the Weapon damage.

Spell Damage:

1d6 Flame Arrow
+11 Named Bullet
Empowered Intensified Snowball cast from a 2nd level slot. 30d6


37d6+53 = Avg. 183 damage. (max 275)

Don't forget to finish your full attack if it isn't dead.

A couple questions:

  • How much concern we have for the 10-11 subtier specifically when determining whether to ban something?
  • How much concern for Seeker tiers?
  • If we are so very concerned about the 10-11 subtier, why are wizards legal?

So, without fully speccing out a character to fit what you've put together numerically, I'm looking at level 11 in standard progression or 10 with retraining to get Named Bullet, which you're looking at 1-3 a day, depending on level and Int mod. What is being comparably lobbed out at that level?

Well, there's pouncing greatsword barbarians to start. They compare pretty favorably, but their trick is practically unlimited use. You've got cavaliers with lances, and their damage is averaging in the 100-120 range per charge with challenge at 4/day. Smiting paladin archers are hanging in there, as well. Rangers could be doing the same Named Bullet nonsense as you, albeit without the spellstrike and at a lower caster level - honestly, most won't.

But wait, level 11? As in, 6th level spells are available? And every caster that focuses on offense is going to be holding a Staff of the Master? The following are just the 5-6 Core spells that could be thrown out by a Wizard. Magic Jar becomes insta-death at its expiration, mind you, and there are 5 Persistents per scenario in a Staff of the Master. The kicker? Less investment is required for these to go off.

  • Persistent Flesh to Stone
  • Maximized OR Persistent Disintegrate
  • Persistent Magic Jar
  • Persistent Dismissal
  • Persistent Dominate Person

Long story short:If we agree that the majority of play occurs under the 10-11 subtier, your concern is significantly less relevant. Yes, archery is powerful, but the restrictions placed on it by Spell Combat restrict its overall power level - you may still take Rapid Shot, for instance, but you'll be using it to avoid casting spells. Your build also required 2 metamagic feats, which reduce the potential to take the standard archery set.

I don't see this as being anywhere close to Zen Archer ridiculousness most of the time. Honestly, I think it's a minor bump up from Magus as a base class.


LazarX wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

Tribalistic: Umm, I don’t see any reason for this to be banned, unless a) someone worried about an all Kellid party or b) someone worried about a group of Tribalistic humans, Isolated Oreads and Arrogant elves walking into a scenario (hey, makes for a quick 0xp 0gp 0pp sheet for me as GM)

It might be hard to imagine a truly tribal person submitting to the Absalom Boot Camp all Pathfinders go through, or remaining tribal after those years of training.

This falls under the "you give up Common as a language" ban. It is one of the most justifiable RP bans the Society has.

Is this trait a legal choice for atheist characters?

Ultimate Campaign wrote:
Disdainful Defender: You are resistant to the magic of other faiths. You gain a +2 trait bonus on all Will saves you attempt against divine spells. This bonus does not apply against divine spells cast by a caster who worships the same deity you do.

I'm looking at making a Pure Legion kind of character and while it seems very Rahadoum-y, it also reeks of cheese given that the exception applies primarily to atheist druids, rangers, shaman, and oracles.


UndeadMitch wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Here's the mystery for me from DTT:

the Kitsune Tricks and Kitsune's Vengeance feats are not style feats
That line mystified me last night. I have no concept of what the rationale for this was other than MoMS wildcarding. That is some really weird campaign houseruling, IMO.

Well, based on pretty much all of the other styles, typically only the first feat in the line of styles is actually a "style feat." Check out UC, Crane Style is a style feat, whereas Crane Wing and Riposte are not. So, that made sense to me.

Edit: I looked at some player companions that also have style chains, and that does not actually appear to be a consistent thing, which is somewhat annoying.

Ahh, so that's fixing an editing error more than a houserule. Got it.


Here's the mystery for me from DTT:

the Kitsune Tricks and Kitsune's Vengeance feats are not style feats

That line mystified me last night. I have no concept of what the rationale for this was other than MoMS wildcarding. That is some really weird campaign houseruling, IMO.


Thanks Chris!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because 'Cheliaxians' is really awkward to say. You might also ask what happened to the 'a' in 'Chelish." Similarly, it would be awkward to have it there.

I wouldn't be concerned at all. There's even precedent for it in Words of Power.


John Compton wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
Saying its in the web teams Queue in and of itself is sort of a vague ETA.
It's in the queue with the updates for August and September.

Does that mean we can expect them tomorrowish-esque™? Incredisoon? Moresoonerish?

Versatile Performance what?

7 is the perfect level for straight Slayer - that's when you get to study as a swift action. You've also hit the point where you can swing for both Manyshot and Imp Precise due to the ranger combat style options.

T2: Ranger Combat Style: Precise Shot
F3: Rapid Shot
T4: Combat Trick: Quick Draw
F5: Deadly Aim
T6: RCS: Imp Precise
F7: Manyshot

You can utilize any race for this, with a premium placed on races with dex bumps. Combat starts, your bow is immediately in your hand and you're full attacking with a buff up. The big draw here is simplicity. You can manage decent skills, but you leave magic at the door. You won't win a DPR war with a ranger later on, but you still have favorable match-ups in most encounters vs. other party members.

A slightly more casty option would be 7 levels of Medium, focusing on the Champion spirit. I'd say Human only for this because you're going to need the extra feat.

H1: Spirit Focus (Champion)
F3: Precise Shot
F5: Rapid Shot
F7: Deadly Aim
Trait: Deadeye Bowman (ISG)

Spells Known:
2: Haste, Heroism

The level 1s and 0s don't really matter that much. You'll have a very limited number of slots per day, so you'll have to cast wisely. If you have a dedicated haste-bot in the party, there are a number of choice buffs available at level 2, including Darkvision, False Life, and Invisibility.

Stats (20 point buy):
Str: 14
Dex: 18
Con: 12
Int: 7
Wis: 12
Cha: 14

Level 4 bump to Dex, ditto level 8 once you get it. The "trick" of this build is that the mid-BAB doesn't really count against you - your Spirit Bonus for Champion will be +3, meaning you're actually ahead of full-BABs in terms of base hit chance, along with +5 damage per shot from the spirit. You're also getting a bonus attack at level 6 on all your full-rounds from your spirit, which puts you at 3 shots at 7 (4 at 8, add Manyshot at 9). The ideal for this build is actually level 8 rather than 7 - you have fully caught up to melee at this point and have more to look forward to long-term. Deadeye Bowman allows you to disregard the normal need for Improved Precise, which you won't qualify for until 15.

This is what I get for not re-reading the strength entry - I thought it was paralyzed, not unconscious.

You don't worry much about the strength damage because you're inflicting it to the new body. You can instead Limited Wish for a paulty 4 strength damage to get Raise Dead. You might even consider doing some bad things to the host body in the meantime.

Here's the counterargument you're looking for, Mineral Water:

You kill my body, but I Mind Swap as an immediate action. I wait a round next to my corpse (or finish the combat, whatever). Now, I cast Blood Money -> Wish to Resurrect myself. I'm not concerned about the str damage because I can cast while paralyzed anyway. As soon as my next turn comes up, I dismiss the Mind Swap.

Rae Alain Paight wrote:
FLite wrote:

The nice thing about the curses is that every two levels of another class counts as a level of oracle for advancing the curse. So if you take a single level of oracle at level 9 (for example) you start with the curse at level 5, and get the first benefit.

I... didn't know that. That's very helpful, thank you. Reading IS fundamental. Eesh.

There's Clouded Vision, Deaf, Haunted, Lame, Tongues, Wasting as far as curses... are there any others?

There are a number of other curses in various splat books, but that's kind of a hard sell - one of them adds fire spells to your oracle auto-knowns, but gives you -4 on all attack rolls. Another gives you a bite, but also spell failure on verbals. The absolute best curse is Legalistic (Blood of Fiends, I think?), but it likely doesn't fit your character.

I'd stay with bard and start focusing more on spells. Start utilizing the human FCB for additional spells known. It surprised me to not see Heroism and Ear-Piercing Scream, for example, but the bard list is really, really good overall.

Also, congrats on living up to your forum name. You learned something today!


As someone who just finished GMing floor 11 in PFS, it is my firm recommendation to run it outside of sanctioned play. The floors are only partially meant to be treated separately and there are huge numbers of plot hooks that get stomped out by the sanctioned run, not least of which is political choices between multiple floors.

Simply put, it's better outside of PFS by miles and it's a structural problem with treating it as modules. That's not a problem that PFS can solve.

As a GM, I love the tables of credit I've gotten from the spire (36 so far between two groups), but dungeon clean-up crew is not a great situation to be in after a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I actually think this delay between publication and PFS legality is a good thing - it gives a bit more time for any troublesome items to get shaken out before being made legal. A slight delay now is *much* less troublesome than having to ban an item later because it just doesn't work in the strange world of organized play.

If the purpose of PFS (from a business standpoint) is to help drive book sales, this is the opposite of good. You've lost your "new shiny" hype window. Players who wanted to utilize the new content as it is published will be pushed out of PFS. The players who are consistent early adopters are, in and of themselves, large sales drivers via referral. Taking them out of the PFS population actually weakens the PFS business justification.

This is especially bad after the pre-GenCon errata backlash - you have a significant, vocal contingent of promoters (in the NPS-sense of the word) suddenly trending passive and questioning their buying decision, and a subset of them are then given an additional reason not to purchase? Moreover, you have passives floating down to detractor and that same "bonus" reason handed to them? Not a good situation.

I'm all for quality, but there's gotta be a balance of expedience.

It is not a typo. This is typical for campaign setting hardcovers.


Cyberohero wrote:
Thank you very much :) I was a bit worried about it and I thought I'd ask.

Totally reasonable question and I, for one, appreciate that you asked it.


Tonya Woldridge wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

Something to keep in mind is that the PFS leadership had a pretty big change recently, so updates and other things have slowed down because of that and other factors. There are also a lot of products and material to go through, too.

Just my opinion, but I'd much rather everything be done right in this case than something slipping through and down the road players getting angry when their characters are made illegal or ruined to some degree.

We did have a bit of a shake up, but the team is off and running. We know your anxious to see the updated Additional Resources and are working to make it happen!

Glad to hear that, Tonya! Can we expect the update next week?

I hope your transition into the OPC role is going well. Looking forward to seeing more from you in the coming months.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lost In Limbo wrote:
the Queen's Raven wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Guys we're talking about living beings, not jet planes.
Transformers are living beings, and sometimes jet planes.
Also, given the weirdness of some of the existing 0HD races having some sort of biological jet isn't really so far out there. Ghoran I'm looking at you, you weirdo.

To be fair, Ghorans also have "Delicious" as a racial trait.


DM Beckett wrote:

Something to keep in mind is that the PFS leadership had a pretty big change recently, so updates and other things have slowed down because of that and other factors. There are also a lot of products and material to go through, too.

Just my opinion, but I'd much rather everything be done right in this case than something slipping through and down the road players getting angry when their characters are made illegal or ruined to some degree.

I get that, I was aware of that, but the sound of the update was that it was just going to have to go through the web team to get updated, not that there was still more work to do.


John Compton wrote:
We finished the final touches on the update a few days ago, so I anticipate it will show up on the website sometime next week.

12 days later, no update. :-(

Seriously, getting disheartened here.

Lost In Limbo wrote:
Serisan wrote:

The race builder mentions the following:

Unless stated otherwise, all racial traits are extraordinary abilities, and each racial trait can only be taken once.
None of the flight options include (Su) tags, so they're all extraordinary, which means wings.
Or gas powered biological jetpacks.

There's only one exhaust port and it sometimes ejects solid fuel waste.


Matthew Morris wrote:

Two Runecarved key stories.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Hydra's Fang Incident:
I pulled one of those "Hail Hydra" moments on Ozrik, my Lamashtan Cleric, when he realized that we were spotted on approach.

The race builder mentions the following:

Unless stated otherwise, all racial traits are extraordinary abilities, and each racial trait can only be taken once.

None of the flight options include (Su) tags, so they're all extraordinary, which means wings.


There is a distinct difference between using the pregen's consumables (an action that a reasonable character would allow in certain circumstances) and selling off all their gear for a raise dead (an action that the vast majority of characters would not undertake). In my opinion, you should have the right to tell the players that the pregen would not go for that.

Pregens are effectively stand-in adventurers, not piggy banks, and they should have the expectation of adventuring again another day. While they might be willing to sell one or two pieces of gear along with each other party member, many of the pregens have particular motivations that may not go along with the pillaging mentality. Erasmus and Mel both come to mind here - Erasmus for specifically having a quote about "she owes me money" in Occult Adventures, while Mel would not be willing to give up his comforts.

Edit: Well, I see there's a MB post about this very issue. Carry on.


Kezzie Redlioness wrote:
There is some really interesting content in Inner Sea Races that I'm curious about. I hope it makes the legal list.

Seriously, I hope that content got included in the AR content review process. Some of the stuff in ISR just screams concepts at me.

The main thing you're missing is Oath of Vengeance for extra smites.

I do tend to agree with some of what Redjack_rose said - there's a lot of pain that you're looking at with that stat array. Some of that is fixed with feats and/or a 1 level Nature or Lore Oracle dip. I would STRONGLY recommend that dip if you're insistent on 7 Dex. In that array, your first level feat should be Noble Scion - War (ISWG) to give you Cha to initiative instead of Dex. 2nd level, dip to Oracle for the appropriate revelation to get CHA to AC. Yes, you will be "behind" in spellcasting, but there's really only one spell you absolutely need to prep (that immediate action LoH when you go unconscious) and you open up a world of wands and basic level 1 casting with that level in Oracle.

Personally, I have no problem with your proposed stat outlay if you take the proper steps to mitigate its risks.

My problem: the Magic chapter of the CRB never actually specifies when you must decide to cast defensively, nor is it FAQ'd. It could be the case that the caster can react to the readied action because there is no clear indication to the contrary.

The pregen kobold sorceror for True Dragons of Absalom was one of the best kobold characters I could have asked for.


Some of the MN organizers report tables before leaving the store from the same laptop/tablet they were using during the scenario.


When is that video getting posted?

Congrats and well done.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Are not Pathfinder Elves built to reside in the base setting, Golarion?

The cancer is built? Like a robot? Are they nanomachines? OH GOD IT'S A TERMINATOR! KILL IT! KILL IT WITH LAVA!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
So JJ what's the best antibiotic to use on Elven induced canker sores in my community?

Greatsword: apply directly to the elf head.

Your answer is in the FAQ.

B, because A means that you run out of spell selections around level 6 for some spell levels and level 10 for most others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rush of people (myself included) when Jon announced that we were $45 short of getting a shorn Andy was quite impressive. It was a quiet Sunday overall (roughly half tables?), but there were about 6 or 7 folks with handfuls of cash swarming Jon.

1 to 50 of 2,385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.