|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
@Ragoz: and just because it's "fluff" doesn't mean it wouldn't also have in-play repercussions.
Kevin Willis wrote:
Started to go into some specific examples, but it's not worth re-hashing all over again.I only commented as I was pleasantly surprised to see that comment from an RVC and felt that some positive feedback might have been a nice change.
Is there a need for creating another term when there can only be Worshiping and not Worshiping? It just makes people confused.
Pantheists or those who otherwise venerate multiple deities for RP purposes? Ex. I have a character who is a paladin of Shizuru based on their Tien upbringing, but venerates Ragathiel as they are a tiefling who seeks to rise above their lower-planar taint in a manner which would be somewhat akin to emulating Ragathiel.
Also, venerate covers those who may give lip service to Asmodius as loyal
Hope you guys find something to replace it in your hearts.
Thanks for the well-wishing, but the loss of CoX was more about the loss of community than even the game play. That's irreplaceable.
Heck they even tried to buy it themselves... but the game was not a money maker and no one would touch it. No MMO can survive without backers.
CoX made money, albeit on the low end towards the end. That much is known. NCSoft wasn't ($6m loss, as I recall that year). Several attempts were (and still are being) made for CoX.
Literally all I want to know is "Is this going to gimp me?"
Sidestepping the definition of Oradin as it was already covered...
... you have a melee-centric paladin build to which you're adding blackened curse (–4 penalty on weapon attack rolls) oracle as a dip for ranged spell damage? The answer is yes.
...Janet Reno/Branch Dividian... the removal of access to Class 3 Permits (you used to be able to obtain a general class 3 permit as a non-FFL dealer rather than the ever-increasing amounts of tax stamps).On the other hand, I know the Paizo staff are generally opposed to having gun-control discussions on their boards, so I'm dropping from this one so as to try to avoid a thread-lock.
For example, apparently TimD cares deeply about the second amendment. I personally disagree with his priorities, and I think the new administration is going to attack multiple other amendments much harder than Clinton would have attacked the second, but at least I now understand where he's coming from.
Thank you. Communication - it can happen. (And, yes, for the record 2A is pretty much my #1 priority, which is probably why I'm confused for a republican so often).
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Straw man: I said "less bad" than Clinton for 2A. Did not say "notable defender". The "R" after his name doesn't particularly endear him to me, either. Unless your argument is that he's somehow WORSE than Clinton for 2A support? (which I'd find laughable as Clinton is pretty much the poster child for anti-2A, but would be interested in how you came to that conclusion on the chance I may have missed something).
Edit: TimD, I don't see the relevance of a post about the second amendment.
The Clintons have always been opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Trump, at least, is arguably less of a threat there.
For a less moderate point of view, for those who think Trump IS the next Hitler, here you go.
... and no, despite being a Republican, that author is not really a fan of Trump, either.
While I'm no fan of the ACA, I can't conceive of it not being around at least that long. Not due to any lack of desire to watch it burn, but more due to the logistics and timeframes needed for the changes to permeate through the various regulatory agencies and then through the insurance companies themselves. Much as it wasn't able to immediately start, it won't be able to immediately stop. Too many things in motion.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think we're talking past each other.I'll summarize my POV and see if we're remotely on the same page as to what is occuring:
A rule was changed to remove an option to reassign pre gen deaths to another #.
I (and apparently a few others) questioned why this rule was brought about as we thought this would have a chilling effect on casual play and a punitive effect on newer players who may be discouraged from PFS having lost their efforts while still trying to learn the game and the PFS systems bolted onto the game.
The only answer we've yet received was some indication that it was due to "griefing" play or "irresponsible use" of the pregens (quotes not as exact quotes, but as summary) which led to undesirable play results.
We're questioning how that can be as the change actually aids in griefing style play as it forces a greater investment on the griefer's victims.
We are in AGREEMENT that we don't view griefing as something that we see a lot of in PFS, which is why we questioned the reason for the change as it made no sense to us.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I myself have seen people play pregens in a suicidal fashion because, "LOL, I'll just toss this on -96" (actual quote). In many scenarios one person going down can be what tips the scales towards a TPK.
So now they ... assign it to -96 and do the same?I'm not sure where the change is addressing this.
If I decide I want to play Mirisiel as Suzzie Suicide to the detriment of the party, how does the rule change stop me? All it does is ensure that if someone else is playing a pregen they suffer for it. On the other hand, if I decide to play a pregen assigned to my -58 the GM or other players may assume I'm on a suicide mission now rather than trying to assist the party by playing out of tier and actually risking my carefully balanced numbering system and the life of Don Quixote De Ylimancha, glorious noble scion Taldor and proud member of the Silver Crusade.
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
In fact, the only reports I've had of tables not firing because of the pregen rule change have been from people who were opposed to the rule change. Coincidence, probably.
It's more of a hard to track sort of thing:I can provide a data point as to why I didn't sit at a table and then point out a fact that the table either did or didn't make.
Someone sitting at the table who has no idea that someone even contemplated sitting their table will just know that their table either did or didn't make and is likely to never know the reason if it did not, unless someone specifically walks by to point it out (which might be interpreted as something of a jerk move as it's almost definitely not the person at the table's fault that this rule was changed).
Amanda Plageman wrote:
It is a rules problem if a rule is changed to address griefing and instead actually encourages griefing behavior as well as creating a chilling effect on casual and convention play. I know I've personally skipped at least 5 tables since the rule was changed, so this is now more than speculation.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
My "no confidence" votes were for local, unopposed candidates. In this case, however, Palpatine might have been a better candidate there as well.Unfortunately, I heard he was planning on running nationally, opposite Cthulhu, but both dropped as they didn't want to be considered a "lesser evil" for 2016.
Tonya Woldridge wrote:
The OP was playing their own character, so the death rule isn't applicable in this instance. Discussion of it doesn't add/subtract to the issue at hand.
True, but this is the first time you've actually addressed it other than to repeat it.Any chance you would be willing to finally tell us WHY the rule was implemented - what problem was the change seeking to address?
@ Amanda: the new rule actually promotes griefing play - a griefer now knows that everyone they play with will suffer for their actions as the other players can no longer assign out the death even if they too are playing pregens and the griefer knows that they've assigned a credit to a character # that they don't care about.
Random things I thought I'd see on your list I'm not seeing:
wands - any, as you have weaponwand as one of your spells known, but no wands in your gear list...
Some random thoughts on other things you may want to think about purchasing:
50gp - air crystal
Well, yes, that too...
Geldling the Unchained Eidolon (whose awesome single bite attack is already magic) would really like a buff...
Spell casting service: Greater Magic Fang (CL 20) 600gp
Amulet of Mighty Fists +5: 100,000gp
... actually, not awesome:
"Permanent See Invisibility, 5,000gp, PF ######" as you said.
Then at 1:45am on the Sunday of a convention slot some poor GM has to try to resolve what happens when that character is hit with a 16th level greater dispel, and of course they are SURE it must have been a 17th level caster ... 18th level caster ... maybe 19th level caster which cast the permanency?
Then at 1:45am on the Sunday of a convention slot some poor GM has to try to resolve what happens when that character is hit with a 16th level greater dispel. Fortunately, this time the PC has written down on the chronicle, "cast by Blammo!". This GM says "the cost should actually be a 5,850gp as you have to pay for Spellcasting Services" - so, no See Invisibility ... but wait, maybe it was 15th level casting... did you spend 2PP on it instead? ... well, if so that might be in a different spot than the gp purchases... in the meantime, the other players are composing emails about banning permanency again...
Then at 1:45am on the Sunday of a convention slot some less charitable GM asks "which claw or bite" does Pouncehate the (chained) eidolon's permanent greater magic fang actually affect?
Your version of "zero trouble" and mine are apparently vastly different.
First of all, Adventure Finder by Region: Andoran may be your friend for finding a bit more info.
RE: Talmandor. There are all of the appropriate ways - going on quests in their name, attempting to get their attention via doing appropriate deeds, etc. There's also the less imaginative, but possibly equally effective way of having someone cast a Sending spell. Long-distance call, will you respond? :)
RE: Marketplace encounters. Rival adventurers, pick-pockets, extra planar predators, mimics, incoming teleport mishaps, incremental weather conditions, awakened animals, alchemical mishaps, duels, bored city guards, impromptu foot races, yelling competition between rival vendors, marriage proposals, small children or halflings falling down wells (bonus points if their dog/wolf animal companion tries to come get the PCs for help), spies, mercenary recruiters, drinking contests, plague victims, street preachers, lovers quarrels, lost/kidnapped children, protection racket thugs / union organizers, parades / processions...
... wait, there's probably a thread for 101 or 1,001 or some such of these somewhere on the Paizo boards...
... and you're welcome :)
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Interestingly enough, I wonder if the samurai determined power is an example of the specific trumping the general. It explicitly says you can use a standard action to remove the nauseated condition. If I were forced to go with a strict rules interpretation in a game, I would probably allow it to work, despite the FAQ, because of how explicit the power is; but this is almost certainly something that should be FAQed.
Unfortunately, you have to HAVE a standard action in order to use an ability which requires a standard action. The explicit exception rule doesn't really provide additional actions.
I think that they should have upgraded it to a move action at the same level that they added the abilities, but that would be an increase in the power level of the samurai and at this point the current PDT only seems interested only in reducing power levels of prior published things (excepting possibly two of the UC classes) if they are making changes rather than increasing them. This means that any FAQ is likely to just result in Nauseated being removed from the list, which would be unfortunate as it would make one of the abilities of one of the only three archtypes published by Paizo for the samurai (the Yojimbo) less useful.
EDIT to add:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Call me stupid but I'm not seeing where the ability can't be used at all, except for the twocases of nausea and exhaustion, he still retains standard actions. Those specific cases should be faq'ed, perhaps.
Harsh, sometimes, but not stupid. :)
Nausea is all we've been referring to in this case. An exhausted character, I believe, still has a standard action so can use the ability to remove that state.
It's the poor samurai who have the ability that cannot actually be used:
Determined: As a standard action, the samurai can spend one use of his resolve to remove the fatigued, shaken, or sickened condition. If the samurai is at least 8th level, he can alternatively remove the exhausted, frightened, nauseated, or staggered condition. If the condition has a duration longer than 1 hour or is permanent, this ability removes the condition for 1 hour, at which time the condition returns.
Another thing you can do if you intend for this campaign to go for awhile in-game is to have the acts of the PCs in this instance affect them later.
Could also do the same, but make it with outsiders / Fey / Empyreal Lords (maybe have Immonhiel have stayed in one of the houses that the PCs provided).
Also worth noting - there are a few concepts which can ONLY occur when multi-classing. (Oradins, for example [with life link + swift action self-heal], can currently* only be built with multi-classing.)
*though there's a healer's handbook in the works, so we'll see how long this statement survives paizo's product schedule
I noticed you linked the NPCs, but provided no insight on the PCs side of things. As mentioned upthread, the NPCs were pretty synergistic in design and apparently all managed to go before any of the PCs. In addition to the general "swingyness" of low-level combat, optimization on PCs can also make a huge difference, especially when combating encounters which are very challenging for their CR.
If you're trying to build a PFS char that can do most anything, that's probably where you're getting the impression that most PFS chars are multi-classed. Those who can do everything probably take a level dip here or there and sacrifice their final level of greater effectiveness in PFS scenarios for better utility earlier on or increased specialty for a character concept (ex. Spell-Warrior Skald or Occultist dip for a martial character, Sorcerer Dip for a Wizard, or Oracle Dip for a Paladin).
PFS goes to 20 if you do it right, it just doesn't go any further.
Azothath's game theory post is right on point for the most part.
The other main difference between PFS and home games is that in a PFS game you (generally) never know what other characters you're going to be adventuring with. Having a bit less specialization and a bit more diversity in build can be a good plan to make sure you don't end up in a hyper specialized group with giant holes in what you can deliver. This is one reason you may see a few more multi classed characters in PFS than you would in home game play where everyone knows what's coming to the table and can optimize as a group more efficiently.
The real question, for both, is what do you have fun playing?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I was more responding to Rysky & RDN's aside than the OP.Probably wasn't obvious as I didn't quote them though.
I have a character with a level dip in Magus who is too stupid to cast spells. Always amusing when folks who think he's a straight fighter see him spend his one arcane point or when he talks about his spell book... The Will save bonus from Magus is one of the only reasons he does make some will saves...
<sigh> the thread title names makes me want to write a Quest featuring a rolling log trap (which is big, heavy, and wood) built by a kobold trap-smith named Blammo that triggers on PCs as they ascend stairs and then rolls over a goblin dog... spoof / derivative quests should totally be the next PFS contest...
Java Man wrote:
47. Iron man drinking competition, alternate shots of rotgut with gut punches from your opponent. Lose conciousness, or your lunch, and pay up.
49. The Iron Golem drinking competition - similar to Iron Man, but your shots are green slime, vegepygmie spores, or other oozes...
50. The Commoner Conversation Drinking Contest. Go to a tavern where non-adventurers go drinking and eavesdrop on other conversations:
I'm with GWL.
In addition to all of the excellent stuff above by Set, another aspect you could zero in on are the fact that the PCs are mercenaries rather than traditional adventurers. The sort of gray morality stories that come from having PC mercenaries are a bit different than most. RP-wise there are the suspicions that the PCs themselves may be the profiteers from the war, the resentment for having to pay them, agents from the other side either trying to actively recruit them or set them up so that they are not trusted by their own allies, arranging their own supplies / logistics as they will probably not have access to any communal resources due to their mercenary nature, etc.
Stories-wise, having PCs also involved in cover-up missions and misinformation campaigns vs. their own allies might also be interesting. To keep it more light grey than dark (especially if you're PCs are mostly mercs in name only) you could tie this into the cult of Norgerberger under his guise as the Reaper of Reputations, where cultists are working with the orcs and trying to sow discord and destroy morale under the PCs' allies' forces.