|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Katina Davis wrote:
Yup; just what I wanted to know. Thanks!
Out of curiosity, does the newest printing have different sized pawns for small creatures (goblins, etc.), and do the pawns have a symbol to indicate they came with the BB?
Here is my list of where I would start. You could play for years with just the stuff on the list.
Once you have the items on my list, I'd say the NPC Codex & NPC Codex Box would be very helpful, given the prevalence of humanoid enemies in your typical game. However, that might be less important since you have the tokens that came with the Beginner Box. Some people also really like the Combat Pad. Personally, I prefer index cards.
I suggest that you avoid supplementary mechanics at this point -- at least until you get a firm grip on the Core -- but given your stated preference for Sci-fi elements, you might want to look at the Technology Guide. Despite being part of the campaign setting line, it's the best resource for super-science and tech elements in Pathfinder.
Cort Odekirk wrote:
I meant that, in the function which is invoked during reporting, check the play history of a given character. If ALL sessions -- including the one being reported -- are flagged as core, then set the core flag on the character. Otherwise, clear it.
It would prevent you from having to manually update the flag when the reporting changes. ;-)
full round attack, can you use any remaining attacks after your initiative to hit a monster if it comes within reach / range
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I was more miffed that I missed the option to raise the dead Pathfinder.
I certainly would have allowed you to pursue that option had you brought it up; however, in hindsight, perhaps I should have explicitly asked if you wanted to do so.
Seems I made a bit of a mess of things. :-(
I've tried a variety of techniques:
I have several hundred 2" circles I've punched out of thing black plastic (Wal*mart has very thing black plastic folders for like $.39 or $.49 each around back-to-school-time; you can get dozens of such circles from one folder). Of course, you also have to buy the 2" punch.
Another approach I've tried is to either blow up and print the map, or draw it on gaming paper, then cut it into pieces. I've even gone so far as to mount the roams on foam core. This is more expensive, because you have to consume supplies for every map, but it is especially effective for hidden rooms and the like.
Finally, I've done draw-as-you-go. The maps are uglier, and this tends to work best with simple maps. Complicated maps can slow things down too much.
I've also seen, but not tried, people using roll20.net (or other vtt) on a monitor that they lay flat on the center of the table. I think this is probably the ultimate solution -- at least until someone nails holograms -- but it requires the biggest upfront investment. Thankfully, the price of such a display keeps coming down. It also requires a bunch of extra work if you're GMing on the go.
Basically, they all have advantages and disadvantages, so there is no "one size fits all" solution. Or if there is, I haven't found it.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Are items granted to the subordinate teams returned to PCs at the end of the scenario? My oracle intended to loan the Kernaug Group her Scholar's Ring so they could use the Legend Lore ability, and expected it back. The potion of tongues was less of a concern, but I wanted to check if I should mark both of them off.
The scenario doesn't specify, so I would think it would depend upon what was communicated to the team when you provided the item. If you expected it back, you got it back. However, in that case, I'd say the amount of aid that counts for is reduced -- this this case, I'd count it as the cost of having a Legend Lore spell cast for you, which would not have been sufficient to earn you the bonus (which in turn would have resulted in the group not getting the 2nd prestige).
However, I believe the fault was mine in not being 100% clear about the status of the ring, and the value of the ring is far in excess of the amount of aid required to earn the bonus.
I suggest the following: You needed to provide 2,500 gold to get the full bonus; How about you keep your ring, but consider the potion consumed and add and expenditure of (2,500 gold - the value of the potion) on your chronicle? That way, you earned the bonus (and therefore the 2nd prestige), but you aren't unfairly penalized for the lack of clarity on your GM's part. :-)
pH unbalanced wrote:
Evil as a physical property is illogical. Not only is it not real, but it can't be explained, except by repeating that it is evil.
It's fine that that doesn't bother you -- that's great. Suspension of disbelief for the win. That doesn't mean it makes sense.
Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm amused that objective morality would shatter anyone's verisimilitude in a game with literal gods and demons.
Except the "gods" in Pathfinder are nothing of the sort. At least not in the modern western understanding. They're not omnipotent, they're not omniscient, and they didn't create the universe. They're mostly just people with a bigger stick.
"Atheists" in Golarion don't deny the obvious evidence that those beings exist; they deny that those beings are worthy of worship.
All we really know is that the spell is evil. That's all we've got in the rules. Why it's evil is left undefined.
Which is the whole point, really. No one is disputing the rules say those spells are evil. They're pointing out that it an arbitrary designation that doesn't bear any relationship to the already established meaning of the word "evil."
The rules could state that love is evil. All that would accomplish is chaos (as is the case here).
Patrick C. wrote:
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?
Also the title of this thread is itself inflammatory, because it presupposes one sides holds an irrational position ("evil being good").
Add to that getting figuratively knifed by the normally-rational for merely stepping into the thread, and you know what is starting to look objectively evil to me? Alignment threads. >:(
Patrick C. wrote:
Except this isn't about the ends justifying the means. There is literally nothing to justify about raising skeletons to do good deeds. No one is harmed. It's only "evil" because the rules say it is, in defiance of any reasonable definition of the word in any other context.
"Helping people whilst harming NO ONE is bad...because reasons."
Dude...what's with the hostility? the guy asked. I'm not the one ranting...
P.S. You're better than that.
People have -- and will continue to have -- this argument because the concept of objective evil literally makes no sense. Calling a spell evil is like calling a screwdriver evil.
Consider using Animate Dead to create skeletons in order to protect orphans from attack, or to evacuate a burning building full of invalids, or to work the fields and stave off starvation when there aren't enough laborers.
They might as well have a rule that says down is up.
Seriously, though...1-20 covers people that can kill hundreds with a melee weapon, teleport between planets, and bring people back from the dead without so much as a molecule of the corpse. If you want more than that, perhaps you should be looking at something like Mutants & Masterminds?
Ross Byers wrote:
The easiest answer to this is that while 'Good' and 'Evil' (and 'Law' and 'Chaos') are absolutes, 'Right' is subjective. After all, Evil clerics don't think they're wrong - they get their power because they believe they are Right.
That's about as pedantic a dodge as I've ever seen.
Objective good is the entire issue!
You forgot to drop the mic at the end.
Edit: Would a mic drop require the Technologist feat? :P
Since, per strict RAW, one cannot hop, check out this special preview of my new book, Ultimate Ambulation:
You can move around using a only one leg.
Prerequisites: Dex 13
Benefit: As a move action, you can move at 1/4 your normal speed, even if one leg is somehow impeded or restrained. If you are damaged while moving this way, you must make a DC 15 acrobatics check or fall prone. You may not run while using this feat. Stealth checks made while hopping suffer a -5 penalty.
The problem is that that "feat" looks like a adjudication guide to existing use of Diplomacy! The UI skill section has to go out of its way to constrain the diplomacy skill to "make room" for this feat.
Unfortunately, now that it is a feat, the PFS GM has two choices:
1. Continue to allow the person who has diplomacy, but not the feat, to call for a truce. This is unfair to the player who took the feat.
2. Disallow calling a truce without the feat, thereby reducing the utility of the diplomacy skill for everyone else.
To me, this is a pretty clear cut case of excessive rules curtailing options, then even more rules "selling" those options back in the form of a feat tax. Worse, as far as I can tell, feats like this exist solely to sell more books by padding the feat count. After all, mechanics sell.
Blech. No thanks.