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. 2,446 posts (2,452 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 13 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 2,446 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

UnArcaneElection wrote:

For organizational purposes, if they were to do a Pathfinder 2.0, they could make PFS rules (which judging from posts apply to a fairly large fraction of their market) be the Core Rulebook 2.0 rules, but not including the campaign setting-specific stuff, and then release supplements that broaden the horizons. This would have the advantage of making the Core Rulebook 2.0 easier to get out the door (since whatever they DON'T change going from 1.0 to 2.0 is well tested in an organized situation), and then other stuff could be tweaked separately (taking a longer time. This would also have the advantage of making the new Core stuff a lot easier to find, even for non-PFS people (who would also need a one or more supplements, but not so many as before, at least until a similar amount of time passes compared to the time between the original Core Rulebook and now, for future rules bloat to spread everything out again). If the transition from 1.0 to 2.0 was like AD&D 1st Edition to 2nd Edition (or at least 3.0 to 3.5), people could even keep using the stuff they already have, although I would expect that some people would buy the new Core even when they already have most of what it covers just for organizational purposes (and then the supplements that come out later would offer both reorganization and bug fixes, as well as new material, and thus have an attraction of their own).

The CRB is a hot mess currently, lacking definitions of key game terms (there is no definition for Burrow, for example) and including redundant and conflicting definitions of others (movement-impacting things, like difficult terrain). IMO, they could save multiple pages of wordcount by having a chapter glossary to start each chapter. Numenera was fabulous for including not only key game terms, but also margin notes with references for key game concepts throughout the entire book.

thejeff wrote:

Except it only really works in the PFS context: strictly defined goals per session.

Very hard to apply in a more flexible game. You could just say "Every three sessions", but otherwise you'll have to railroad specific xp goals in.

I co-wrote a game some years ago where there were 40 character levels and the rule was "you level up once after each session unless the GM says otherwise." Those levels were significantly less choice-laden, mind you, but the same principle applies: how effective is your storytelling if you can't finish it in 39 sessions? In PFS-style experience, 39 sessions = level 14. Capping at 20 is an additional 18 sessions, totaling 57. That's weekly for over a year. If you still feel constrained, you tell players that you'll be slow-tracking experience, resulting in up to 114 sessions. For reference, on full slow-track, you'd see level 10 after 54 sessions.

That is a lot of sessions. Even in a less-linear, more flexible game, I would expect that many players would be chomping at the bit for more mechanical growth after 6 sessions per level for 2 levels. I certainly don't want to be one-shot by an orc warrior after 5 sessions of character building! That's what you'd still be looking at in slow-track.

GMs would still have the option of fiat experience by targeting objectives, which many GMs already do: "You found the maguffin, you level up." Again, the presumption here is about what's printed, not what's foisted upon you as poor GMs and players.

Valantrix1 wrote:
Going from a more permissive rules set to a more restrictive one? Yeah, no thankyou.

Again, I think the disconnect here is that some people are seeing "PFS chassis" and thinking all the same stuff gets printed, but then everyone follows the campaign house ruleset. It's more of a "before things are printed, they're reviewed by campaign management and the banned stuff just doesn't get printed." This still isn't impacting 3PP or other sources - GMs could certainly opt to use those, along with any house rules they please - it's just impacting what actually gets released with Paizo's name on it. If it does have to be printed but isn't intended for players (like that super-broken cyclops mystery for Oracles), then it would flat out say that it's not a player option.

I would not consider the wolf to be an exotic mount given that it is one of the first level mount choice for small cavaliers. Clearly, it's a semi-common practice.


Ran tonight, party had a VERY difficult time with this one. 4-5 subtier with the 4 player adjustment because the APL was 2.5, rounded to 3, round up to 4-5. Party included only one character in subtier.

Encounter 1: the party rushed up on the cannibals with super high ACs. The cannibals basically needed 20s to hit the frontliners. Mbaaj nearly Death Knelled the level 2 monk after downing him with Inflict Serious on an AoO. Most of the party couldn't see the surrogate until the rest of the kuru were dead.

Falling Blocks: one guy failed his climb check. Someone then went down after him, triggered the trap, failed the reflex save, and landed unconscious from the falling damage. The rest of the party raced down and healed him before he bled out. Meh.

Leeches: OMG. This was the worst. Monk ended up grappled and distracted, got knocked out from the STR damage, nearly suffocated in the water. Only the kineticist could do anything significant to the swarm and he struggled to get people to stay out of his way so he could hit Touch AC 18. Monk also had 6 points of DEX drain. This was a brutal, long encounter. They rested after, then humorously retriggered the omnomnom trap.

Polyp: Players smartly blockaded the doorway and beat up the hungry hungry congo line.

Ghast: "Diplomacy" opened with the 7 CHA, 7 INT kineticist blowing up a festrog. The other one didn't last past the next initiative tick. I played nice with them, having RV attack the summons each time they came up so I wouldn't obliterate the party. He is too strong for the subtier, IMO. I was hitting some members of the party (raging barbarian, for example) on 2s. Not cool.

Baelen: "Initiative. Ok, kineticist, you go first." *crit* In short, interesting that he's here, a complete non-threat.

Secondary success: They took a day "mapping" the area in-character. When I asked to see the map, one of the players took a picture of my map with his tablet and showed it to me. He then made a Profession: Engineer check (I think the character had Breadth of Experience, but I'm not 100% on that) and blew it out of the water. The party cooperatively identified a bunch of features in the verbal report. I called it good. Everybody hated the condition, including me. It felt like a "gotcha" and not a real thing. It's Pathfinder-y, but having the player action count towards the character is weird. Still, they spent an in-game day doing the mapping since the had the time, so I gave them the point.

Bonus! I wanted to add this to the PFS prep site, but I can't seem to get the verification link. Another local GM and I created some horror snippets in Lovecraftian style for this level. They went over amazingly well at both tables we had up tonight. Basically, you hand out a card when it's appropriate, have the player read it to themselves, and react in-character. Within minutes, all the characters were suspicious of each other, though the Magus was SUPER happy when he thought the entire party disappeared, then crushed with disappointment when they weren't actually gone. Everyone had a good time with them and they played well with the "alien weirdness" of the tomb. I explicitly kept them as non-combat, no consequence pieces and they really enhanced the story.

Everyone had a great time, though we were all quite tired by the end - it was a slog of a dungeon that drained resources very quickly, even with rest after the leeches.


I have run this scenario a few times and never had time for the storm. One table didn't even have time for the rust monster encounter. They literally cheered. It was the 8am slot at a con.

The captain is a bit of a tosspot and that's ok. The real star of the show is Azuretta. Also, be prepared to have your players immediately suspect Killik is the killer since he has "kill" right in his name. Additionally, depending on your region, there's a significant chance that he is the killer. We have very few Exchange folk in the MN lodge.

The traits are also good, and a couple of the style chains are super fun. This was a pretty cool release, IMO.

I think the editing would be significantly better if PFS rules were the chassis. Heck, there are PFS "errata" in the Additional Resources on splat book material that should have never been printed as they were, but someone forgot how formatting works on certain items - Kitsune Style in DTT comes to mind, where all the path feats were labeled as Style Feats, but that breaks with the formatting rules for those and had real rule implications, so it was errata'd in the AR.

I'm not really up on the 3PP stuff, but saying that PFS is the chassis doesn't prevent or limit 3PP, so no biggie.

I prefer the 3xp levels of PFS over the needlessly complicated XP table model. Other than the initial restrictions, I think Prestige is a fine mechanic, albeit clunky and likely discarded in terms of purchasing power for many home games. Getting rid of crafting actually broadens the field of play and removes terrible subsystems, so I'm pretty cool with that. You don't feel compelled to take Craft Wonderous at 3 as a caster, so you can do more interesting things.

I find it funny that people think things are "inexplicably" banned. I tend to wonder why certain things are legal - Morphic Savant is a prime example of something that breaks tables, but it's completely legal. It somehow got through editing AND PFS review, though, so whatever. It's not like the PFS chassis saved anyone from that thing.

Blave wrote:

Unarmed and Gauntlet probably don't work because you usually need both hands on the reach weapon. I don't see any reason why armor spikes shouldn't work.

Note that a Monk could use a two-handed reach weapon and still use unarmed strikes.

Other ways to threaten adjacent and reach squares would be improved snap shot and Improved Whip Mastery.

Not sure where you're getting the "unarmed won't work for non-monks" bit. You can still kick if you're not a monk.

You are not correct. Threatening an area is not limited by "hands of effort" and, as such, all of those things you mentioned actually do work. A lot of people confuse this because of the TWF rules, which would limit the interaction between a 2h weapon and unarmed, for example, but the TWF rules are not engaged whatsoever when it is not your turn. In essence, the process flow looks like this:

1. Am I armed with the weapon currently?
2a. If yes, I threaten and can make AoOs.
2b. If no, then I do not threaten with that weapon.

Additionally, as long as you're not using the secondary weapon to make more attacks than your base attack bonus would allow, you don't engage the TWF rules, either, meaning that a 6 BAB barbarian with a reach weapon and armor spikes could make one attack with each of those weapons in a full attack. This is detailed in the FAQ.

CountofUndolpho wrote:

What about Ice and Snow they both use the "half movement" wording (from 3.5) are they difficult ground? By the arguments being used here they aren't and you can 5' step in them - would anyone play that?

CRB, Environment chapter wrote:
Snow: Falling snow has the same effects on visibility, ranged weapon attacks, and skill checks as rain, and it costs 2 squares of movement to enter a snow-covered square. A day of snowfall leaves 1d6 inches of snow on the ground.
Same chapter wrote:

Ice Effects

Characters walking on ice must spend 2 squares of movement to enter a square covered by ice, and the DC for Acrobatics checks increases by +5. Characters in prolonged contact with ice might run the risk of taking damage from severe cold.

Hey look! Examples of my argument.

There is a feat called Ranged Trip in Ranged Tactics Toolbox, which allows you to make trip attempts with any ranged weapon using your Dex mod in place of Str for CMB.

It is the best of all possible worlds, frankly.

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

grease doesn't say it's difficult terrain; it spells out exactly what happens if you're in those squares

furthermore, it's irrelevant, because you're stepping out of those squares into a non-greasy square (you're not moving within or through the affected squares)

5-foot step is a go


I love repeating myself:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
lack of nomenclature does not mean lack of rule.

It means nothing whether or not the call out the rule as to whether or not its in play; to think so is closed minded.

"Moving through" is defined as leaving or passing over a square, not moving into it, by the combat rules. Read the attacks of opportunity section closely. That being said, the magically conjured (meaning actually there and real as real can be for the duration of the spell) suddenly is no longer on your shoe as soon as you step out? I could see the argument for 5ft stepping into a square as there is nothing slippery coating your feet on the first step into the square; the intention of the spell is also not stop you from through from the other side but to keep people that were already in the space from leaving easily: If a wizard put down some grease in front of me, as long as I'm not Fatso the Fighter, I can just take 10 on an acrobatics check and jump right over. If I could just 5ft step out and I can jump over it from outside of the space, the spell is as worthless as metal armor to a druid.

You're attempting to place realism into the ruleset to establish a houserule precedent. The rules are an approximation of reality, not reality itself.

As I posted earlier in this thread and has been reaffirmed several times by other posters, your movement requirements are determined by the square you are entering. That's how the Special Movement Rules section of the Combat chapter covers it in its example graphic. This is why you can 5' step out of the area of grease.

Let's not have another one of these arguments again, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

TBH, I've wondered at times how combat times are benchmarked as I've had a remarkable number of parties fail to keep pace with just the combats in some scenarios. For the RP sections, my assumption (were I to write) would be that an RP encounter = a combat encounter, unless you expect your average encounter to go over 45 minutes. The unfortunate thing here is that many tables would have "combat overflow" and have to cut the RP encounter drastically.

The other shifting annoyance here is that higher level play typically results in lengthier encounters. You still want the players to engage with the scenario - in fact, more so than at lower levels since they've had Society history at that point, IMO - but you also want to make sure that they get their combat moments to shine since they're finally at a level where most characters "come online." Your options as an author then typically revolve around optional encounters, which results in markedly different table experiences based on composition and time.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nothing prevents you from 5ft stepping out of difficult terrain. Likewise, nothing prevents you from 5ft stepping out of grease. The GM could rule that the square you are in counts as 'moving within or through the area' if they like, which would then require the Acrobatics check. But it would still be a 5ft step and not provoke.

To elaborate on this, movement is always determined by the square you are entering, not the square you are leaving. Special Movement Rules in the combat chapter has a diagram explaining this. Here's the example text:

CRB wrote:

The fighter's first move costs him 5 feet (or 1 square). His next costs 5 feet also, but his third (his 2nd diagonal) costs him 10 feet. Next he moves into difficult terrain, also costing him 10 feet. At this point (#6), the fighter has moved 30 feet—one move action. The last square is a diagonal move in difficult terrain, which costs 15 feet; he must spend his turn's standard action to move this far.

Thus, leaving the Grease square doesn't mess you up at all - you don't care what the terrain qualities of that square are. You only care about the state of the square you are entering.

Avoron wrote:

Yes, you can. Although there's a bit more to the explanation.

Serisan wrote:
Because there is no official game term for "adjacent,"
Combat wrote:
Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.
In Pathfinder "adjacent" means "within 5 feet." And your mount is clearly within 5 feet of you, so it is adjacent.

Bah, that's what I get for not searching the combat chapter again.

Rathendar wrote:
CR9? the base opponent is a CR5. Favorable terrain is basically a +1, at the most a +2 if you are adding an extra 1 for...self buffing? yes?

The base opponent is CR6. It's also described as buffing for as much as 3 rounds of combat. While the CR system is generally ok at estimating the difficulty of unbuffed encounters, this one is straying into the realm of "need a nat 20 to hit + ability to fly" for the fighters after all of those buffs, plus the ability to wipe the floor with the party if they do not have sufficient buffs themselves (resist/prot energy, in particular). This is something the CR system is not equipped to deal with properly.

It's always worth remembering that there are threads like this.

Enemies that have time to buff to that extent in advance have their CRs bumped appropriately. If the enemy also has favorable terrain, this could easily be a CR 9 encounter.

Regarding stat blocks, the Stickylord is in the PRD, so you're in the clear there.

One of my Emerald Spire players is playing a cardcaster magus using chakram as his primary weapons. Without heavy armor, though, these are a poor melee weapon - some GMs, however, will simply allow you to remove the self damage if you have a gauntlet on since that's the part that protects you from cutting yourself. Chakram are one of very few slashing thrown weapons and it comes with a base 30' range increment.

Sad as it is to say, the thrown weapon combat style for rangers is terrible. Just take the archery style instead since all of the feats you intend to take for this style of play that have prereqs are in that style. Thrown gives you no early access feats that you couldn't get through archery, making it worthless. The alternative, as Gisher pointed out, is TWF style, which opens up the dex-free TWF feats. Take this if you think you'll play melee equally to ranged. Archery allows for a more throwing-focused style.

Returning is a poor option since they come back at the end of your turn. Once you hit level 6, you will have too many attacks for these weapons to work properly. Blinkback, Ricochet Toss, or tons of mundane weapons are really your best bets here. This also greatly matters with special materials. Ricochet Toss is truly the strongest option of these, though, since many good thrown weapons are one-handed, which limits you to 2 on the belt. Remember that each Returning weapon is over 8k gold and you can easily replace the stat belt with Ioun Stones if you go that route.

Tapkill wrote:
If me and my animal companion mount have this teamwork feat, does that mean i can move all around without provoking Attacks of opportunity?

Yes. Because there is no official game term for "adjacent," we are able to use a common usage definition. In common usage, you are certainly adjacent to your mount, in that you are "next to" it. If you were not adjacent to your mount, you would not be riding it, after all.


Kjatan wrote:

Then again... Pathfinder seems to only impose a Concentration check on spellcasting underwater, and makes no mention of drowning related consequences, so ignore my previous speculation. I'm surprised it doesn't have anything to say about potions, but it would be less laborious than casting a spell with verbal components, so I must assume it wouldn't be a problem. (Other than the description of Potion Sponge, that is.)

** spoiler omitted **

Tangent regarding aquatic combat:
It is my opinion, as well as a number of other GMs in the MN lodge, that the concentration check does not include holding one's breath. Similarly, if trying to cast a spell with verbal components while subject to a chokehold, you are no longer holding your breath. With that in mind, the concentration check is to ensure you can actually form the appropriate verbal components while underwater - failure means you failed to do so and the spell is expended with no effect.

And yes, I expect table variance with that, despite the fact that most casters are going to have options to handle this by level 5, if not earlier.

DM_Blake wrote:

Nope, no rules that I know of. There is not even a general rule for what happens when two grapplers are forced to move away from each other and there are many ways to do it (Bullrush, Create Pit, Telekinesis, etc.).

This is entirely up to each GM.

There are many considerations. For example, since neither the grappling rules nor the grappled condition state HOW the grappler is holding, you could literally apply grappling rules/conditions when one person graps another person's arm, and you obviously use them when an anaconda wraps itself around it's prey a half dozen times like a giant scaly spring.

To me, it seems like it would be possible to kick away a guy holding my arm, but not to kick away an anaconda wrapped around and around and around me.

But even if you kick the guy back 5', what happens? The grapple doesn't necessarily break. We do have a rule that if you grapple someone who is not adjacent, you automatically move them to an adjacent square. For example, if a giant octopus grabs/grapples you, it drags you automatically to an adjacent square. What if you kick that octopus back 5'? Maybe it just drags you to the new adjacent square. And if that can work on an octopus, maybe it can work on a person grabbing your arm - you kick them back 5' and you are dragged 5' with them to the adjacent square.

That seems reasonable to me.

But then this is a feat that has CON and WIS prerequisites making this a painfully MAD feat. Worse, it also requires a substantial BAB and a prerequisite feat too. If anybody is going to meet all those prereqs and take this feat, I'd want to let them be a superstar when they use it - especially since it has limited daily uses. My rule would be as above, you might move them back 5' but you probably go with them, but against anything that has less of a hold than the anaconda, you get a bonus CMB check to break free. Heck, I might go so far as to use the same attack roll, so a good Punishing Kick means a good chance to break free.

Totally not RAW, but I don't think...

Most characters with this feat are likely Hungry Ghost Monks, who get it in place of Stunning Fist, so the pre-req bit is unnecessary as a consideration.

Re: anaconda vs grappling dude, the anaconda is clearly pinning the opponent - their grapple would be the initial bite and maybe one or two coils.


GM Lari wrote:

The PCR seems sensible, though as Andrew mentioned, an elaboration for situations where chronicle sheets have an A/B choice. To continue the above example, if there's one boon for not eating the angelburger (say +2 on diplomacy with good outsiders) and another for eating it (+2 on Profession(Cook) when using celestial animals), maybe you get neither? All the boons of that sort that immediately come to mind are based on party actions, not individual, though.

Also, in the wake of all this angelburger discussion, the Compsognathus/soon-to-be Cassian Angel who co-manages a restaurant chain with my Paladin will be paying a lot more attention to her suppliers from now on.

My interpretation of your hypothetical would be that either the character or the companion eating the angelburger would cause you to get the eating it boon. In effect, you would be saying that the player ate it. That said, other boons might not be so clear-cut.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that is incredibly reasonable and intuitive.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Serisan wrote:
If other players are detracting from your fun at the table because they're going over-the-top, it's ok to politely ask that they tone it back. They may have very valid in-character reasons for their words and actions, but this is a game and, as such, players should respect each others' feelings. It sounds like you felt bullied to some degree.

yeah, no. There has to be some allowance for what the other person is actually doing, not just what someone is perceiving. Otherwise everyone is a jerk for doing everything because someone is going to be offended by it.

Its really hard to imagine a situation where people talking in character about an imaginary deity (you know what i mean. Dont...:) ) could possibly elevate it to be a comment on the player. This is a role playing game, people are going to say things in character and PFS doesn't offer you the time in the spotlight or sandbox required to be subtle about characterization. The players know their character is wrong.

As for the reaction it really should vary by deity. While you can always justify any stance, a Saranite is far more likely to keep healing them than say a cleric of Abadar.

Letting them burn their wand charges is a bit of role playing. Letting them die would be crossing the line into jerk. If they're REALLY bad about it, just cast stabilize on them and prop them up against the wall.

There is a difference between asking them to tone it back and asking them to stop. I'm not suggesting that we should disallow RP between Pharasmans and necromancers, for instance, but if it's to the point where you feel uncomfortable at the table and would consider walking away, a polite request is a better step to take.

A reasonable question as well would be whether the ropes tying the tower together fail before the wood takes significant structural damage. It could very well be that the tower falls over of its own accord while on fire because the ropes were burned away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

7-01 Between the Lines is a great RP scenario in that the RP is liberally sprinkled throughout, though it is challenging because the RP is heavily based on symbolism, which can be difficult to convey to the players at times.


Jerky behavior is in the eye of the beholder...well, maybe the froghemoth given the licensing, but you get the picture.

If other players are detracting from your fun at the table because they're going over-the-top, it's ok to politely ask that they tone it back. They may have very valid in-character reasons for their words and actions, but this is a game and, as such, players should respect each others' feelings. It sounds like you felt bullied to some degree.

Most players aren't jerks, but sometimes jerky behavior comes out. Asking politely is usually enough to have someone tone back the behavior to acceptable levels.

This spell shows you why Break Enchantment does not work on Feeblemind.

Nature's exile can be removed with break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

Not really. The point is, if you allow for positive boons to affect pets, there are many that would need a whole slew of new rules or FAQ answers to resolve.

And if negative boons can't apply, then the risk for the pet is removed.

Neither of these is a good thing.

Neither is having the possibility of inconsistent rulings based on whether it's positive or negative. It's particularly concerning when talking about eidolons because they theoretically can't be replaced in the same way as other pets. An animal companion could die, be released, or what have you and just be replaced to avoid the consequences of a negative boon, but that's not the case for an eidolon.

I'm having difficulty discerning the distinction between the sigil wafers and the curse here (as far as specific examples are concerned). Both amount to "an in-game effect happened to my critter because of something it did," but the argument I'm seeing is that only the curse impacts it. How is that intuitive?

Casual Viking wrote:
Serisan wrote:
How is this question not answered by this FAQ? It is, quite literally, just another example of "Spear Training."
because that only explicitly (but not "explicitly only", the distinction is important) applies to archetypes within the class. But the discussion around that FAQ illuminates that substantially fulfilling a prerequisite is sufficient.

Here, have a dev post on the topic (from when SKR was a dev).

Relevant quote:


So when the cleric class has a header section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel Energy," and the oracle class has a section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel: You can channel positive energy like a cleric," and the paladin class has a section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel Positive Energy (Su): ... she gains the supernatural ability to channel positive energy like a cleric," those all are intended to work the same way, even though they're not given identical names. For one, because the paladin and oracle "versions" of that ability tell you it works like the cleric "version" of the ability. For two, because having them all work the same way is simpler and easier to remember than each of them working a different way. Now, given, the oracle gets 1+Chamod per day instead of the cleric's 3+Chamod, and the paladin spends uses of lay on hands instead of a separate X/day allotment, but if you line up a good cleric 5, a life oracle 5, and a paladin 5, and tell each of them to channel a burst of positive energy, all three of them are healing 3d6 to living or dealing 3d6 to undead, DC 10 + 1/2 level + Chamod, 30 ft. radius, no AOO, and so on. Exactly the same. Because it's easier to remember that way. Because it makes the game easier to run that way.

And that means things like Improved Channel and Alignment Channel and Extra Channel should apply equally to the cleric, life oracle, and paladin (you'll note for Extra Channel the paladin ability's counting method of uses per day for the feat is slightly diff because the paladin ability is based on using lay on hands, but the net result is the paladin gets +2 uses of channel per day, just like the cleric and oracle). Because to do otherwise means we need different versions of these feats for oracles and paladins because under the strictest interpretation, neither of them has a class ability that's specifically and explicitly named "channel energy;" and three sets of redundant identical feats for clerics, oracles, and paladins is lame and a waste of space.

What's interesting is that Monstrous Mount is specifically written in a way to attempt to exclude Druids. In this case, though, you can say that the Bonded Mount is analogous to Divine Bond. If you read the Paladin class feature, you'll note the following:

The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6.

Turns out that Divine Bond is the name of the class feature, but it allows you to select either a bonded weapon or a bonded mount. Thus, the Oracle would qualify.

How is this question not answered by this FAQ? It is, quite literally, just another example of "Spear Training."

What do you know about the Wizard? Honestly, the rogues should be a non-concern unless you dropped Uncanny Dodge or don't have access to the spell Atarlost mentioned. The Wizard, though, could be any number of issues.

re: weapons, I'd recommend hammer in 1 hand, reach in 2 hands, and something you can throw (chakram, for instance) in the final hand. This will allow for readied actions if needed.

For the thrifty, there's also darkleaf leather lamellar, which is only 810gp. For the discerning wizard, darkleaf quilted armor provides extra protection against arrows, bolts, and other "small ranged piercing weapons" without the pain of spell failure or ACP, albeit with a painful 7.5 lbs weight for Medium creatures.

Jiggy wrote:
Malag wrote:
I kind of more expected from my PC's to do such things as exploration, scouting and finding allies, but they still use the old tactic of "buff up and kick the door". I guess the problem was that I never completely teached them not to use it, but then again, putting up a double higher CR encounter constantly seems unfair also so I am not sure how to approach that area.

This is a bit of a derail, but if you want to discourage the practice of always defaulting to "buff up and kick down the door", you're probably better served not by an unreasonably tough fight, but an empty room. When the PCs throw up half a dozen buffs only to spend a good chunk of the durations trying in vain to find (non-existent) secrets in the lavatory, they might think twice about other unknown rooms as well.

When scouting becomes a means of not wasting their buffs, they'll probably start doing it.

Well said.

This is one of the reasons that I truly love the level 5 Mind Eye power for the Occultist, which frequently can be used to scout ridiculous areas with no downsides whatsoever. Sure, can't see through a door (lol Gloves of Reconnaissance to the rescue!), but it's a trivial expenditure for incredible information gathering.


I am so late to this party. Finally ran this scenario tonight. It does not hold up well. Most of this is simply the change in expected power levels combined with the unpredictable nature of regional meta. When written, this was probably a much more interesting and challenging scenario. The party was very well-balanced and, as typical for the MN lodge, we had a table of 6 (not the greatest situation here) - Occultist 9, Bard 8, UC Rogue 8, APG Summoner 9, Fighter 8, and Alchemist 6. I'll be describing these in spoilers just for space's sake.

Waystation + Sledding Up:
There was very little to work with for Rysam and Krysher. I had handed out the faction missions with the explicit "these are not for prestige" statement and the Liberty's Edge folks tried to shake down Krysher immediately. They could tell he wasn't fully honest, but did not do anything to derail things here. He was summarily executed by the UC rogue at the end of the scenario.

I handed out the dogsledding rules, the party determined who could best handle mushing, and they were off to the races. The ascent was thoroughly described, though the fact that there are only 2 events on the way up was somewhat disengaging for the players. They eagerly seized on what was available, though, and figured out some things about the taer and Aspis presence with The Bodies.

The avalanche was one of the things I was most concerned about. Having read the rules thoroughly on this in advance, I was relatively certain that this would either be a non-issue or a TPK, as determined solely by the result of the d6 roll. I got a 2, it was a non-issue. 1 character was buried, but the Occultist could use telekinesis to remove 250 lbs. of snow per round, while the eidolon could clear 1400 lbs. per minute without tools. I'm glad it was relatively forgiving in that a 2 or higher trivialized the encounter since a 1 is almost always going to be a TPK. The only PC in the party who could make the strength check to escape being buried was the fighter. The eidolon was flying the entire time, so even then it wouldn't have been a TPK for this group - it would only take about 5-10 minutes to clear everyone with just the eidolon working.

The Maw:
The players were thoroughly amused that the anger of the taer barbarians make them stinkier. The 5 barbarians lasted less than 2 rounds. This, however, is where the scenario broke.

The monstrosity arrives a few minutes after PCs start digging...

A few minutes, eh? Well, the ice was destroyed in approximately 18 seconds by the fighter + eidolon. Mind you, this fighter is not a two-hander, but a sword and board defender. They find the bones, pop them in a haversack (still under the 1 minute mark by my count) and start heading back to the sleds, objective in hand. I decided that their "few minutes" were up at this point and had the remorhaz appear by the eggs. The party opted to go to the sleds and leave since the remorhaz can't keep up with the dogs. A couple Handle Animal checks later and the secondary success condition is essentially automatic - the waystation was never on fire because the taer were never enraged into attacking.

The Descent:
The Handle Animal checks were fine all the way down and started being hot as soon as the Aspis rolled out. The Occultist uses telekinesis to devastating effect here, throwing one of the sleds into another, sending all 4 Aspis agents flying. The eidolon flies over to another sled and simply destroys the front end, freeing the dogs and sending the Aspis agents into the snow. The Occultist then telekinetically grapples Fyrth, who remains stationary as his musher and sled move at increment 8 speed. In effect, the encounter was over in slightly more than 1 round.

What bothers me here is that this was assumed to be a chase. Frankly, even a 3.5 core-only party could resolve this within a round without leaving the sleds within 1-2 rounds of "combat." Some suggestions from the party for resolution:

  • Cast sleep on the dogs.
  • Fireball the dogs.
  • Shoot the dogs.

Frankly, this entire encounter could be resolved with level 1 spells at range as long as you can make the violent motion concentration check. It sounded cool, it was interesting to prep, but the reality of it was simply not a letdown.

This was non-existent. The scenario was easily derailed at The Maw, so Act 5 literally did not happen. It is also not particularly clear what an appropriately leveled caster with Create Water prepared does to the fire - I assumed a bucket of water is 1 gallon and Create Water is going to give you at least 10 gallons, which leads me to believe that I should be doing level*2d4 "healing" with each casting of a cantrip.

As mentioned above, the PCs suspected Krysher was up to no good and summarily executed him in the kitchen before leaving. I cut to Osprey and started writing chronicles at this point because there was not a whole lot of anything to work with here.

Where do I even begin with this? I want to start with expletives, but I'd rather not invoke the wrath of the moderators.

First, the gold is INCREDIBLY low. Like, a full tier behind. I actually pulled chronicles from 3-7 scenarios in advance to compare and it's within 100 gold on a significant number of them. I was amazed that there was not a revised chronicle for this scenario and, if I didn't have the option to do a level 1 version of the chronicle, I simply wouldn't have taken GM credit for the scenario. The players were baffled by the max gold on this scenario.

Second, nearly all of the wealth is predicated on two encounters: the remorhaz and the Aspis ambush. I took a liberal reading of the conditions ("defeat" being that they successfully completed the remorhaz encounter via bypass, just like traps, and the PCs certainly "survived the ambush"). Were I to take a more strict reading of the scenario, the players could have gotten full prestige, but walked out with only 333 gold for the chronicle. That is ridiculous. I felt bad enough with the 3531 gold in the 8-9 subtier, but to reduce it further? No. Absolutely not. This is woefully out of line with other scenarios in the tier. Even the Alchemist, who pulled in out-of-subtier gold, barely got rewarded for his efforts. Seriously, I apologized to the players for how lame this chronicle was.

The players, in the end, thanked me for doing the best I could with a dated scenario. It had so much promise, but just a few issues caused the whole plot train to derail. Thinking through it, though, I want to stress that literally everything that happened could have been duplicated with a 3.5 core party. Whether that's a failing of the play environment of the time or a lack of imagination on the part of the author, I'm not sure, but this felt like a 3-7 scenario with 5-9 written on it by accident given that it certainly did not predict the types of resources available to 8th and 9th level characters. Additionally, because of the unique subsystem presented for dogsledding and use of relatively obscure pieces of the ruleset (altitude, avalanches, and cave-ins, for example), the preparation was significantly more difficult than other 8-9 scenarios I've run.

In short, don't run this for players who know how to play the game. If you do run it, it's ideal to do so in Core and with 4 players. Frankly, the design felt as though it failed to plan for the existence of casters. This severely undermined the fun of everyone involved.

Because the playtest is closed, I don't believe the PDF is available through the Paizo Store.



I'm not sure how the forums would handle such unmitigated sexiness as would be presented by so many studded leather thongs.

plaidwandering wrote:
because the monstrous mount worg is medium, beast rider allows it to go large

The alternative here being Undersized Mount.


Rock on, Jack!


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I didn't regard this spell as all that relevant when it come to the discussion since a vanilla magus can use spell combat, cast named bullet on his thrown weapon, and then just use it for a melee attack. This also works with the card caster archetype, except that he his thrown weapons can carry melee and ranged spells.

I had never thought of that and it's brilliant.


Nefreet wrote:

As Sebastian pointed out, that FAQ is referring to Companions, not Familiars.

That does throw a bit of a wrench into what I was saying earlier, though.

While that's true, it's important to remember that:

CRB wrote:
Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar.

and mechanically:

It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type.

The ability to use a shield is not an effect that depends on its type - that wording refers to things like Favored Enemy. At the end of the day, the familiar is still an animal, even if it has been retyped for effects that depend on type.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Serisan wrote:
True that there was mismatched expectations for psionics vs psychic here, but the psychic is the laziest design in the entire book, which is evidenced by the fact that there's a sorceror bloodline that steals 90% of the psychic's schtick, but with the superior sorc/wiz spell list.
Except it doesn't... It doesn't get undercasting (which makes it's Undercasting prodigy ability rather weird),
Undercasting is associated with the spell, not the class. The sorceror can undercast.
it doesn't get the ability to augment it's spells through amplifications,
Different, but you get bonus feats instead.
it doesn't get a discipline,
doesn't get a detect thoughts SLA, doesn't get the ability to convert spells into a scaling detect thoughts, doesn't get a telepathic bond SLA, doesn't get the ability to convert spells into telepathic bond,
Different, but meh.
doesn't get constant telepathy,
That's cool, sorc gets constant Thoughtsense instead
doesn't get the same captsone.....
Whatever. It's a capstone. The real capstone is gained at level 18 anyway, when you get 9th level spells.
Nope, only link is the fact they are both d6 psychic casters.

Allow me to tell you what the sorceror gets that the psychic doesn't: 6 years of older content in the form of Player Companions, Campaign Setting, and APs, as well as the hardcover line. Additionally, while I use Phrenic Amplifications on my psychic (as mentioned earlier, I have a level 11 psychic in PFS), it's usually to make up for some gap I had vs a sorc - "I need something to do against undead other than Magic Missile. I guess I'll Will of the Dead this Oneiric Horror." The other thing with the Phrenic Pool is that it's consistently tiny. Again, at level 11, I have a pool of 7. The amplification I want to use costs 2-4 points. Ponder that for a second. Also, if you want to boost that pool, be prepared to only select Half-Elf as a race and constantly wonder if you were better off using 3 levels of FCB for 1 point vs 3 more spells known. In short, the pool looks like more of a differentiator than it actually is. I spend more time wondering if it's worth the points on a given spell than actually using the points, though that might change now that I have the dispel rider major amp. At least the feats are always-on.

When I built my psychic, I had intended to use all the "super-interesting new psychic spells," which worked great for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells known. Now, I say things like "man, I wish I had Fireball right now" or "Wow, everything worth taking right now is out of the CRB and I could have gotten that on a sorceror." It turns out that the biggest differentiator is the spell list and I can tell you right now that the only positive I've experienced so far is that my psychic has Freedom of Movement, which isn't on the Sorc/Wiz list. My go-to spell for disabling could easily be replaced (Oneiric Horror -> Hold Person). The rest of the time, literally everything else could be just as easily handled by the Sorc/Wiz list without worrying about things to do when the targets are plants/undead/constructs/etc. Beyond Haste, the psychic doesn't really get an answer to golems until level 12. Think about that. Even with that being the case, the vast majority of the psychic list is shared with the Sorc/Wiz list. It's just that the Sorc/Wiz list is WAY bigger.

Beyond that, the fact that I get mechanical things for saying my character does a crapload of drugs is no more powerful than several bloodlines and just encourages me to make hippie jokes all night.

In short:

  • Phrenic Pool is meh and compensated with bonus feats.
  • Disciplines = Bloodlines.
  • Sorc/Wiz list >>>>>>>>>> Psychic list
  • At least you get some telepathy stuff?

Sure, not the same. The sorc is just better, though, and this is coming from someone who is literally playing the psychic class right now in PFS.


Andy is right here because of the FAQ.

An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools...

A shield is both a weapon and a tool in this context, even if used for defense. If you have questions, refer to the Smashing Board.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

Pathfinder finally gets around to Psionics!

And it's just Sorcerer by another name. =(

Is that really the best they could do?

Your problem is that you were expecting a repetition of what Dreamscarered and Paradigm Press have already done.... reissue 3.5 psionics when it was cler from the getgo, that was not what we were going to get.

True that there was mismatched expectations for psionics vs psychic here, but the psychic is the laziest design in the entire book, which is evidenced by the fact that there's a sorceror bloodline that steals 90% of the psychic's schtick, but with the superior sorc/wiz spell list.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone with a level 11 PFS psychic, I can safely say that the psychic bloodline sorceror is flat-out better simply due to spell list. It also effectively has more spells due to the undercasting bloodline power at 9.

Mechanically, there is no difference. Sure, there's flavor, but I can exhibit flavor without mechanics. The psychic is just a sorceror with the serial number filed off. Good flavor, extremely lazy design.

Nefreet wrote:
I think you'll find that the majority of your parties will be fine on the up-front-melee-striker roles.

Depends on the region, but yes, this is typically the case.

I would consider swapping your WIS and CHA. You're built to channel and part of that is ensuring that your Selective is going to be selective enough. Other than that, the build looks quite sound.

How's your Bluff? You could always implicate him for certain crimes about town and have him hauled off by the city guard.


nosig wrote:


Last few tables I've been at have all had Darkvision... Except for the one with the halfling.

Mostly Elemental blooded.

The exception is when we've been playing core... And even then, humans are about one per table.

The last table I ran that all had darkvision was a table that was replaying Emerald Spire 1: Tower Ruins. Most of them rebuilt afterwards.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have you spoken with the GM about this? This is always step one. ALWAYS.

If another player is detracting from your fun at the table, you shouldn't feel obligated to sit in silence or even sit at the table. It is the GM's responsibility in a home game to keep a table in relative order, which seems to have already been disrupted by the level imbalance. Failing a correction here, the GM should address your concerns about PvP.

If the GM is not willing to take action to correct this, you should leave the table.

1 to 50 of 2,446 << 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.