ThreeEyedSloth's page

It depends on the spell that was cast, but typically, doing it all in one round is going to cost all 3 actions since most attack spells have a 2-Action cost, and then another Strike action to make the attack.

Oh man, an unarmed brawling Magus sounds SO FUN.

That's... extremely unfortunate.

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

I understand why the blog post was locked, but I'm extremely disappointed that it was before Erik could reply to the question that I and several others raised.

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

This is extremely important to me, and I can't continue to support Paizo-published adventures until this is addressed. Because I know this is not an isolated issue - I have spoken to other people that have worked for or contracted with Paizo over the last decade, and this issue has come up before.

So, what is going to change moving forward?

You might want to consider your own bias here. You've taken Erik's statement that some members of the staff raised concerns that didn't dissuade him at the time and made that into "not taken seriously or ignored". In other words, it looks to me like you've already rendered judgment when it may be that their objections didn't outweigh support from other staff members when making the decision to go forward a year ago.

I mean... what you're describing is not taking someone's concerns seriously. So yes, if a group of people outweighed someone's legitimate concerns, that means that everyone involved in that decision is complicit.

This is exactly what just happened at Cards Against Humanity. They created a toxic culture where legitimate concerns from Black employees were ignored by a majority, and they felt like they had no voice. And now the company is rightfully being raked over the coals over their horrible treatment of Black employees and women.

And while I'd say the corporate culture is different between somewhere like Paizo and CAH, it's still the same fundamental issue - if a minority feels that there are representation issues in the company's product and their concerns are not taken seriously, then something needs to seriously change.

Of course they aren't obligated. I never said that.

But if you're going to tell your customer service that you're "going to do better," it's not a weird question to ask how that will actually look. Because, again, it's not the first time.

I understand why the blog post was locked, but I'm extremely disappointed that it was before Erik could reply to the question that I and several others raised.

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

This is extremely important to me, and I can't continue to support Paizo-published adventures until this is addressed. Because I know this is not an isolated issue - I have spoken to other people that have worked for or contracted with Paizo over the last decade, and this issue has come up before.

So, what is going to change moving forward?

https://discord.gg/pathfinder

I will miss Alahazra, but

TENGU ICONIC MAKES ME SO HAPPY

My favorite ancestry (kenku/tengu) is finally getting a bigger spotlight. T_T

Thank you.

Because you admitted that these issues were addressed by staff previously but were primarily ignored or brushed aside, what steps will you be taking to stop that from happening again in the future?

Thank you for sharing this.

It was also through RPGs and the indie RPG community that helped me discover my bisexuality, and even start to understand and be accepting of my confusion and uncertainty over my own gender assignment. I know our industry and community has a LONG ways to go, and things aren't great still for PoC and women in the tabletop sphere. But things like this make me hopeful that one day we'll all get there.

First off, I just want to say that I am an a PFS vet and former Venture Officer that played, GM'ed, and ran games all over from Season 0 through 2013. I've been on a Pathfinder hiatus for awhile, but the release of 2E has awakened these sleeping bones. It's exciting!

However, a lot has changed in the organized play world since I burned out on PFS and moved on. I spent a fair amount of time assisting our local game store and area conventions with the launch of Adventurer's League, and it was refreshing to see WOTC's more relaxed approach rather than the very restrictive and exhaustive bookkeeping that was required of PFS organizers.

So, coming back to assist in organizing and running PFS2 after several years away, I'm a bit bummed to see that not much has changed, despite the fact that D&DAL has done a lot to bring in people to participate in organized play. I do like the new faction and boon system that's been imported from SFS, and the smaller tiers of play (1-4 rather than 1-5) is much better IMO. However, there are two specific rules that I am particularly frustrated to see still in place.

1. Replay. I was there in the beginning of PFS during Season 0 and Season 1, and I remember the ongoing discussions about replaying scenarios back then. I get it. Trying to close loopholes to prevent abuse of the OP campaign makes sense. I get annoyed by AL players wanting to replay the same handful of adventures with new characters just to get access to specific magic item certificates.

However, the line in the PFS2 Guide that talks about undersized tables is extremely disappointing.

You can replay an adventure in order to help a group reach the minimum legal table size of three players.

When you replay to help create a legal table, you do not earn any rewards. The GM should provide you a Chronicle sheet that grants no rewards (including gold pieces, Experience Points, Fame, Reputation, and boons). However, do record any items expended or gold spent on the Chronicle sheet.

So, someone that steps in to help get a table off the ground not only receives absolutely nothing for their 4+ hours of time, but technically loses because they still have to count anything spent and consumed. That's brutal, and I would never ask anyone to step in to be a third player at a table to get nothing for their time. That type of draconian fear of letting people get replay credit doesn't promote any sort of community, at all. This should be an exception that DOES allow player credit, with a special note on the chronicle that the replay credit is approved via creating an undersized table.

2. Sanctioning adventures. I can't wrap my head around the fact that official Paizo-published adventures still have to go through a PFS-sanctioning process, where players only get "partial" PFS credit for their time.

One of the things that has greatly driven interest to D&D at our local game store is the use of published adventures as OP content. When someone creates an OP-legal character and plays through an entire book with them, that character keeps all the XP and treasure that was earned and becomes a regular OP character to be used for any Adventurer's League scenarios. It keeps things open rather than isolated and silo-ed off.

I would love to organize a weekly Fall of Plaguestone PFS event at our game store, where GMs run players through the Adventure for a couple of hours each week until completion. And at the end of that, they get to keep those characters and use them for PFS2 scenarios. Instead, they get a chronicle sheet that awards them for roughly 1/4 of their time, and it would require them to make a new character anyway to apply it to.

It's a very confusing and unfriendly system to new people wanting to play a more traditional ongoing game, while also getting to participate in the organized play system. It especially doesn't help that even weeks after release, books don't get sanctioned/approved immediately, leading to hesitation to even offer to run something special for organized play players.

I would really love Paizo to take a look at some of the things that WOTC is accomplishing with D&DAL. I know there's an aversion to "copying the competitor," but when the competition is offering options that encourage flexibility and casual play rather than strict, inflexible rules that require a level of record keeping that many casual players don't have time or a desire to participate in... It's just hard in 2019 to convince folk why they should give PFS2 a chance, when the current OP system doesn't seem particularly interested in providing an incentive for casual players.

I know this is going to come across very angry-sounding, but I'm not. I'm genuinely excited about Pathfinder again, when I wasn't sure if I ever would be again. But I know I'm also not alone in wishing that things were more flexible and accurately rewarded people for their time instead of assuming everyone is trying to cheat the system.

With fewer than 5, I only add the unique C Deck boons and banes that aren't in the base set. Just so I'm not missing out on anything!

You can freely trade amongst yourselves first before hitting up the traders.

I gleefully ripped up and wrote on everything in Pandemic Legacy. It was so freeing.

Some things to note from my questions on the stream:

Initially, only a few characters are available for play. From the hands-on previews a few weeks ago, I believe Kyra and Merisiel are the only two to select.

You can unlock additional characters with gold that you earn from killing monsters and winning scenarios. However, if you purchase the season pass, not only do you unlock all the Adventure Decks as they become available, but all of the characters as well.

Also, when you begin a new Adventure Deck, it doesn't look like all the boons get added to the mix right away. There are treasure chests that you will unlock that have new cards in them, which then get added to "the Vault", which is their term for the game box. So you have to unlock new boons into the Vault first before you'll see them pop up in play.

You also earn Gold when you kill monsters, which can be used to purchase new Adventure Decks. Possibly new characters too. It's uncertain if all of the Runelords characters will be playable from the start.

I don't think that's the case at all. The "may" is simply allowing Meliski to break the normal rule of a single blessing coming from his own hand. Now you can choose to play two with that feat, but the blessings still get recharged whether it was one or two played.

What does it matter, honestly? I mean, a RPG GM could easily swap the shopkeeper's daughter for a blacksmith's son as a romantic story hook if they wanted, so why can't the card game? Besides, that art for the daughter has always been one of the worst parts of an otherwise great book.

Any opportunity to get away from such blatant "omg da b00biez" art is worthwhile, IMO.

For some, dice are something you collect. I have a number of dice that I rarely use, but purchased because they look or feel nice.

It's the new Roadfinder Adventure Card Game: Mommy's Mask.

Yeah, but you also don't *have* to take Arushalae either. It's an additional option that becomes available as a reward, but its still just an option.

Being able to just take it is past broken in my opinion.

How is this remotely broken? Please break that down.

For one, it's loot that you're already not using. There's a reason it's not in your deck, right? If it was so good, you'd have it.

Secondly, you can't take ANY Loot. It has to be from the AD-2, which limits what's available, AND you still have to be in a situation where there are no card upgrades available of that type to be able to pull from the box.

I think your definition of what's broken is broken.

Correct. However, because she is the Owner listed on the card, Lini treats Droogami as if he had the Basic trait.

That means if she's an Ally short at the end of the scenario and there's no replacements to take, she can go through the box and immediately add Droogami back into her deck.

I'm always on board for Sondheim. If you start incorporating Webber lyrics into scenario titles though... I'm out.

Yeah, we didn't include all the leftover cards in the final location because the wording seemed pretty clear that it's only henchmen and a villain. I think we finished the scenario in five turns due to hitting the henchmen in the first locations almost immediately, then "closing" the last to funnel the villain.

Apparently no one else caught Hawk's awesome Harry Carey reference. Sad. :P

I think Gaby is stealing all your Ezrens for her nefarious Ezren army.

Honestly, The Elven Entanglement could be made into a much less frustrating scenario in one of two ways.

1. Allow Tangle Traps to allow players to close their location.

Or...

2. Reduce the number of locations for the scenario by 1, to compensate for the lack of closing-capable henchmen.

How many of other people's cards did Painlord take home this convention? :)

Don't forget, Merisiel was one of the main four on the Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path and she didn't make the cut for the card game, so no one is safe until the list is final. :)

The Knight Argent wrote:

Sorry for casting "Raise Dead" on this thread, but my Hedge Wizard Ezren just got his grubby mitts on the staff and I was searching for clarifications, thinking it was overpowered (so I smiled when this thread came up).

Does the Hedge Wizard power to "Add (1, 2, or 3) to your Arcane or Knowledge checks" apply to this, making the max roll 1d12+9, barring other Int buffs?

The confusion arises because of the word "checks" in the Hedge Wizard power. It's not a check, is it?

It wouldn't add the bonus. You're adding your arcane skill when you use the staff, but nowhere do you actually make an arcane check (a check needs a difficulty number that you're rolling against).

That's what I told him when we played together, but does he trust the Sloth? Noooo... :)

If you're familiar with the Adventure Path, it totally makes sense why they'd include Khorramzadeh in the base set.

It's so wickedly evil of them to do so, but I totally get it.

There's two primary issues with that though, Vic.

1. The specified pool of cards tailored to your class is much more limited in scope than playing out of the box, meaning there's less room for shaping your character to your own playstyle.

2. Quite a few of the cards available in each Class Deck are generally useless to many characters in those boxes, furthering narrowing the amount of available options for upgrading.

It's definitely a good idea and step in the right direction for organized play, I just hope it undergoes some major refinements for next season.

I think Canis is asking if the new 4A reward is a non-permanent Skill Feat that can be used during an encounter, or still permanent like the previous one.

Correct. Lottery is only used for "closed" games, or non-organized play. PFSACG and PFS are open to all walk-ins.

It's an interesting idea, but one that I think ultimately doesn't work as-is in organized play. There should be rewards to incentivize players to play each scenario, not penalties.

I think it would've been a lot better if the overall scenario was tougher, and then completing all of the scenarios in the current adventure would make the villain easier. That way people don't feel punished for not being able to make a session.

The penalty for not making all scenarios is missing out on rewards. That already exists. There's no reason to compound even more on top of it.

Andrew: The "Immunity to Level" thing doesn't exist, at least in Pathfinder, so there's no thematic context for it to the RPG.

HIRGENZOOOOOOOSK!

Man, what a challenging but fun scenario. Everyone had a really good time, though one of my other tables had some confusion over the setup that had me questioning my interpretation of it.

From what I understand, Ruffians (serving as Lightning Elemental proxies) and the Villain get shuffled into locations just like normal during setup. However, if a 1 is rolled due to Pinnacle Atoll and Hirgenzosk is already out there in the wild, additional henchmen get added to the deck.

My other table thought it meant that no henchmen were added during setup, and the only way to get them out into a location to ultimately defeat them was by rolling a 1 at a Pinnacle Atoll. That would then shuffle in a henchmen, making it easier to close.

That interpretation is certainly interesting from a mechanical standpoint, but I didn't think it meshed with the actual text on the scenario page so we all used my version of the scenario.

In the end, both tables were victorious but only barely. A Sandbar really put the screws to us for awhile, locking us in for about 6 turns before finally being defeated.

How did everyone else fare?

I think a Summon Monster/Nature's Ally Encounters set would be awesome. Featuring animals, elementals, and other creatures as part of the spell lists. I think that's something that a lot of players in addition to GMs would want.

Oh man. I would've loved for a Risk: Legacy approach to her second power.

"Rip this card in half to gain a skill feat."

Our encounter with a Dwarf Caiman at the Alehouse has been a reoccuring joke with our group.

We named him Neil Caiman.

Yo dawg, I heard you like Charisma dice...

With a new Adventure Deck comes new rewards and new challenges. How did everyone do with the first scenario of Adventure 2?

I'm really liking the "build new locations mid-scenario" addition to the game that Skull & Shackles has introduced. It catches you off guard; you think you're doing well with the Blessings timer, but the realization that a whole new location is going to enter that needs to be fully explored can cause panic if you're unprepared.

Both tables of 5 last night won, but barely. The timer almost got us all, but we squeaked out a victory and earned some shiny AD2 rewards in the process.

Dice are a very personal aspect for roleplayers. Gamers like to choose the color/type of dice that they like, and often feel attached to.

It would be silly to enforce a specific color scheme on dice.