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

crmanriq's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 195 posts (818 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

The HD do not change, you only get what is listed under the animal companion section. It does not matter if it's Int is 2 or 20, and it looses everything and becomes a normal animal from the book if ya ever dismiss it anyhow

They are not normal animals to start with anyhow.

Can you point me to any rules text (book and page number) that supports the assertion that the animal companion loses any abilities if dismissed? I can't find it anywhere in the core rules.


HaraldKlak wrote:
crmanriq wrote:

I'm unable to find a rule that adequately covers this, so I'm seeking opinions (and if James or Jason feels so inclined, a ruling).

Is an Animal Companion still an animal if you raise it's intelligence to a 3 or higher?

Given the numerous provisions for Animal Companions with Int of 3 or greater, it's plainly allowed that they can become smarter. And their feat and skill choices increase. This is also encompassed by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

My answer would be a loud NO. The animal companion does not become a magical beast.

You mention a lot of good reasons yourself. The hit die and bab increases would be broken (in the sense that all druid would choose to boost their companions to int 3). And the awaken spell does specifically state, that awakened animals (now magical beasts) can not serve as an animal companion.

The druid animal companion isn't the only exception to the rules of animals with higher intelligence. The paladins mount (which functions as an animal companion) has an intelligence of at least 6 without being a magical beast (which it becomes at paladin level 11).

The Paladin's mount is an excellent example. Thanks. That really puts me into "It's an animal no matter what it's intelligence is." territory.


I'm unable to find a rule that adequately covers this, so I'm seeking opinions (and if James or Jason feels so inclined, a ruling).

Is an Animal Companion still an animal if you raise it's intelligence to a 3 or higher?

Given the numerous provisions for Animal Companions with Int of 3 or greater, it's plainly allowed that they can become smarter. And their feat and skill choices increase. This is also encompassed by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

However...

According to the Bestiary (p307) under Animal Traits: "Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

The logical choice would be that an Animal becomes a Magical Beast
Bestiary p308.
"Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have
Intelligence scores higher than 2 (in which case the magical
beast knows at least one language, but can’t necessarily speak)."

However, the two types are sufficiently different that this does not immediately seem a good fit.

Reasons
- Animal Hit Die is d8. Magical Beast is d10
- Magical Beast BAB is Fast (=HD), Animal is Medium (3/4 HD)
- Magical Beasts have Darkvision, Animals have Low-Light vision.
- Animals are always Neutral. Magical Beasts have no alignment restriction.

Further, an animal that has been the subject of an Awaken Spell has it's type changed to Magical Beast.

So I guess the question is, is an Animal Companion with an Int of 3 the exception to the Animal Type rule that limits intelligence, or does the Animal Companion actually become a Magical Beast. If it does, does it gain the larger Hit Die, Fast BAB, and Darkvision?


James Jacobs wrote:

As much as it bugs the OP, I can GUARENTEE it bugs me more. Especially since, in this case, it's already in print and going back to "errata" it won't change that, since that volume of Pathfinder AP is unlikely to ever be reprinted (we have PLENTY in stock). If/when we compile Sean's deity articles into a big book some day in the future, THEN we'll make that change. For now, though, it's just something that I have to deal with, and something that every GM will need to either make a judgement call on for his own game and/or seek out advice on these boards.

crmanriq wrote:
- Does the PDF still have this section?

Yes.

crmanriq wrote:
- Is the book receiving errata?

No. I'm not interested in setting a precedent of issuing errata for EVERY book we print, since we simply don't have time to wallow in our previous errors to that extent.

crmanriq wrote:
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?

No.

crmanriq wrote:
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?

None. The rest of the books are fine.

crmanriq wrote:
- If I can't trust the printed material that I purchase to be canon, then what reason do I have for purchasing the printed material?

If one development error getting into print like this is enough to make you lose trust in our work on Golarion... I'm not sure what I can say aside from I'm sorry.

crmanriq wrote:
- If the PDF is not being re-edited to take out the section that should never have seen print, then why not? Why buy the PDF?

Because there's a LOT more material in that volume that ISN'T an error that still works fine. Including that specific article about Asmodeus.

crmanriq wrote:
- If the rules as printed don't tell me enough to be able to know whether my character is legal or not for PFS play, then do I just show up and hope for the best?
PFS does not generally allow every single new option in ALL of our books to be legal for play. Buying our Adventure Paths solely to...

James,

Many thanks for stepping up and addressing all of my questions. As I stated later in the thread, it's more my problem than anything else.

I fully understand that as a company, your aim is to drive forward than to have to recircle back to fix things that got missed or miss-printed. [deliberate misspelling].

I enjoy the game. I enjoy the setting. I enjoy the organized play. I bring up issues in the hopes that you won't end up doing to Pathfinder what WOTC did to 4e. (I know, a whole other discussion for some other company's forum. Dropping that.)


Kolokotroni wrote:
crmanriq wrote:

Re: Evil - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small advantage.

This is why I see Asmodeus being quite happy to find a place for Paladins within his rule. He can send a Paladin out to perform good and lawful acts. Save the princess, keep the peace, destroy the minions of Rovagug, rescue slaves. All the while, each act in some quiet, subtle way pushes his agenda forward. Without the BIG BIG BIG picture, the paladin will have no inkling that what he is doing is other than good and lawful. He will see himself as an example to others in the church in how to change things from the inside. He will be a hero to the children and the masses.

It's not even necessary to have the paladin be an idiot or a dupe (Lawful Stupid, as it's sometimes called), This is a Greater God that we are talking about. His plans span centuries, and the breadth of all of the planes of existence. What would be the alternative for the paladin, even if he had a hint of a greater plan in his mission? Not to rescue the slaves, or save the child? Therein lies the true genius of Asmodeus. Present the paladin with situations in which his very nature will drive him forward. Show him that he has a valued place. That Asmodeus stands for Law. That Asmodeus will give him his powers in order to do good works, and will never ever ask him to perform any evil or chaotic act.

I see great depth in this sort of machination. Something that might present awesome role-playing opportunities.

But, alas...not in the PFS campaign.

Regardless of rulings or what have you this story wouldn't play well in any organized play situation....

Oh, I know this thing won't ever get covered in Organized Play. I'm talking about how/why paladins of evil could (and probably would) exist. I'm talking about fluff on my (well, not on, but next to) my character sheet. The type of thing that you start launching into at the table when people say "Really?? A paladin of X?" or (what I get) is "Really, a necromancer cleric of Ydersius with an animal companion that you Animate Dead on if it dies???"


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
crmanriq wrote:


The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.

Well, when you have three different possible rulings that can happen, how it should work in your home campaign, how it officially works in the company's setting (Golarion), and how it even more strictly works in the Organized Play campaign using the company setting, then yes, it makes it much harder to keep track of rulings.

Of course, you will get tons of posts/threads arguing about a problem, then a developer will step in and make an official post saying "this is how it works", and then you get tons more posts/threads arguing about how official the official ruling really is.

But frankly, even with the occasional exceptions, these forums are still much more polite and free of trolls and obnoxious people than practically any other forum I have been on that dealt with rpgs.

Politeness - yes, I think that generally, the Paizo boards are more polite than most other's that I've seen.

Officialness - What would be more optimal, to me were if there were one locked thread on the each of the Pathfinder, Golarian, and Pathfinder Society boards, where the only posts were official rulings. Mirrored in a PDF that could be downloaded through the "My Downloads". The thread would contain short synopses of rulings. (ie. on Pathfinder Society - [this is per an earlier ruling by Josh that has not yet been incorporated into the Guide to Organized Play] - "For clerics, the character must be with in one step of the alignment of their deity. For other classes, no alignment restriction applies. This is a change to page xx in the guide, and will be incorporated into a future printing."

But, that's mostly wishful thinking. The game has grown quite quickly, and it really looks like the Paizo folks are still overwhelmed on their website. A big push to come up with a organized forum strategy would probably help them out a lot in the long run, but it's always hard to justify the time required to do so.


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
crmanriq wrote:
Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)

There is also the post that James made when he locked that thread:

James Jacobs wrote:

Cheliax faction paladins are completely legal.

Asmodeus-worshiping paladins are not.

You can be a Cheliax faction character who doesn't worship Asmodeus. The vast majority of Chelaix's citizens don't actually worship Asmodeus, in fact... although they're all afraid of him.

And I feel that a lot of the Cheliax missions are mild because evil alignments are not allowed for PFS characters. So if you had to do a lot of missions that were more evil in nature, then the game would be forcing your character's alignment to slide toward evil, perhaps resulting in a forced retirement of your character due to alignment change.

Re: James Jacob's final post on thread - I thought about including that, but since it went right along with his first word on the thread, I left it out out of redundancy. Thanks for posting it.

I think that most Chelaxians profess to worship Asmodeus not out of fear of the Deity, but out of fear of the Paracountess and the rest of the hierarchy. The Cheliax book makes it clear that many of the church services in Asmodeus are performed as much to be seen professing faith as anything else.

I'm playing a Cheliax Cleric of Ydersius in PFS. His outlook (and role-played as such) of the Paracountess is much like a North Korean's outlook of the Great Leader would be - you had better be seen as one of the most ardent supporters, and you had better turn in anyone who isn't.

Re: Evil - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small advantage.

This is why I see Asmodeus being quite happy to find a place for Paladins within his rule. He can send a Paladin out to perform good and lawful acts. Save the princess, keep the peace, destroy the minions of Rovagug, rescue slaves. All the while, each act in some quiet, subtle way pushes his agenda forward. Without the BIG BIG BIG picture, the paladin will have no inkling that what he is doing is other than good and lawful. He will see himself as an example to others in the church in how to change things from the inside. He will be a hero to the children and the masses.

It's not even necessary to have the paladin be an idiot or a dupe (Lawful Stupid, as it's sometimes called), This is a Greater God that we are talking about. His plans span centuries, and the breadth of all of the planes of existence. What would be the alternative for the paladin, even if he had a hint of a greater plan in his mission? Not to rescue the slaves, or save the child? Therein lies the true genius of Asmodeus. Present the paladin with situations in which his very nature will drive him forward. Show him that he has a valued place. That Asmodeus stands for Law. That Asmodeus will give him his powers in order to do good works, and will never ever ask him to perform any evil or chaotic act.

I see great depth in this sort of machination. Something that might present awesome role-playing opportunities.

But, alas...not in the PFS campaign.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Ok, this is more or less what I expected. So aside from adding fuel to the never ending batman/robinhood[alignment] debate, what part of this says character option? It seems like a clear plot element/flavor to me.

Ah. Well, this grew out of somebody asking on the Pathfinder Society forum whether or not Paladins of Asmodeus were legal to play. Which led to someone saying [paraphrasing] 'of course not', and someone else pointing to the article as a reason why they would be. And forth and back and so on.

The one take-away I've gotten from this whole thing.

Don't ask rules questions on the rules forums. Look for the answers in the Core Assumption (Core Rules + Bestiary + Seeker of Secrets). If what you are wanting to do allowed (or is not prohibited by a plain text reading of the rules), then simply make your character according to the rules. Show up at the game with the relevant rule, and if it becomes an issue with the DM, discuss it there.

The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.

Oh, one other thing. In an environment with strangers, leave all of the non-rule information (hair color, eye color, height, weight, religion (if your class does not specifically require a deity), place of birth, mother's maiden name, name of first pet, pin number, favorite color, etc) on your sheet blank. Keep your backstory on a separate piece of paper. There are a lot of people out there who will hate your fluff (it's kind of like not discussing politics, religion, or sex with strangers - somebody will hate something that you don't and then they'll hate you because you don't hate what they hate). It's better to have a fluff-free character sheet than one that can be objected to in any way.


Quandary wrote:

I don`t even have the original ¨Paladin of Asmodeus¨ article,

but from what I know, it doesn`t even seem like it`s directly talking about ¨Paladins OF Asmodeus¨, i.e. those whose powers derives from Asmodeus and who explicitly worship him. Why can`t Asmodeus ¨use Paladins as a tool¨ indirectly (i.e. not providing their divine powers), i.e. tricking them into doing his will, etc, but not be ultimately responsible for their powers? That seems alot more likely of an explanation to me, and suprememly in line with the modus operandi of a being like Asmodeus.
relevant text from article, thus it is wrote:


"As a whole, Asmodeus’s church has few organized groups of soldiers, mainly because in most lands their religion is forbidden and a large, open group attracts too much attention. Even in many evil countries, where worship of the Prince of Darkness is openly allowed, tyrannical militaries and despotic laws reduce the need or impetus to create special groups in Asmodeus’s name. However, monastic orders aligned with Hell are not that unusual; the rigid discipline and isolated community of such an organization are complementary to the lawful-minded and often-persecuted Asmodean faith.

Paladins also have a strange relationship with the Archfiend. Though the idea of a lawful good paladin serving a lawful evil deity seems ridiculous, it can happen. Asmodeus is primarily a deity of law, with evil being incidental to his concept of law. Very rarely, Asmodeus allows a true paladin to serve him, using him as a tool in lands where a more traditional priest would be hunted. The paladin’s duties are always very carefully explained and restricted to avoid conflicts that result in evil thoughts or actions; in effect, the paladin is a champion of contracts and law, who happens to be good. This is possible for three reasons: One, Asmodeus can have clerics who are lawful neutral rather than lawful evil; these clerics walk a fine line that avoids outright evil while still promoting order, and therefore in theory a paladin can do the same. Two, the nature of evil does not require one to always be evil; an evil person who doesn’t rob, murder, or torture at every opportunity is not at risk of becoming less evil—in fact, an evil person can perform good acts every day, making it entirely possible (though exceedingly rare) for a servant of Asmodeus to be good, having never done an evil act. Three, the deceptions of Asmodeus are subtle and deft, and it’s potentially possible for a paladin to believe his efforts and the orderly god’s will serve a greater good, though ultimately he serves nothing more than the god of
tyranny’s cruel agendas.

Such paladins sometimes see themselves as reformers of their church, trying to convince others that it is possible to serve the ultimate law and still be a good person. Religious scholars speculate that these paladins are actually granted powers by another deity (typically Iomedae or Sarenrae) through some complex arrangement with the Prince of Darkness. However, it is possible that having a good paladin in his service benefits his plans in the long run, and that these enigmatic individuals really are serving Asmodeus. Their path is much more difficult than other paladins, and only those lucky enough to die young avoid falling from grace—though what fate their souls face in the afterlife remains a matter of great theological debate."

[emphasis mine]


Kolokotroni wrote:

Hmm never had a typo corrected with a limerick before, thanks Chris Mortika for the mild amusement.

Anyway, so there were alot more threads about this then I was aware of, hehe. I guess the whole paladin of the lawful evil god would be a hot button issue. I am definately far more layed back about this sort of stuff because even as an AP subscriber, the material is most of the time more for inspiration and ideas then to be used as canon. There is still only one publisher that gets a blanket ok at my table, and that is Super Genius Games. But that is mostly because they produce self contained easily digestible (small) products instead of the massive interrelated libraries of stuff the big publishers put out. Bigger the scale, the better the chance there is of something being in there that's out of wack. It is litereally inevitable.

I will have to re-read the article itself, but it seemed to me to be an article to help dms write interesting storylines for their game and not something to be used to justify characters. But then again, like I said I am extremely willing to handwave great swaths of material into and out of my game(always with proper notice to my players of course) so it just doesnt seem to be a big deal to me.

But anyway, back to the main point from the OP's thread:
Does the PDF still have this section?
It is extremely unlikely the PDF will be edited in the near future if ever. I dont have access to my copy of the pdf can someone check? But i would be 98% sure its still there.
- Is the book receiving errata?
Same as above.
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?
Ditto.
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
Honestly, any and all that dont work for your game. If you are talking about organized play, there is a list in the pathfinder society guide of what is legal from non-core products and what isnt. I am pretty sure that this particular article from CoT is not in the list.

- If I can't trust the printed...

I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful answers.

I believe you have a good outlook and interpretation of the use of the books in play.

Portions of the book (certain spells, and the customized summon list) are usable within PFS, but as you say, it's not all legal as player resources.

I currently run the Legacy of Fire campaign at my FLGS, and I understand that what to let in and keep out is the domain of the DM. I'm very liberal in what I let in, as I believe that players should have the opportunity to play characters that they want to play, not characters that I want them to play. As a consequence, I've had characters ranging from "I'm a generic archer" to "I'm an alcoholic pirate wench cleric who somehow wound up in the deserts of Katapesh".

[I keep writing things that devolve back to the locked thread, and then self-edit them out, as I don't want to re-fight a lost battle.]

So. Bottom line. I agree with you that most probably nothing in print or pdf will see any changes. I reluctantly agree with you that the best use of the Paizo material is as inspiration and not as canon, given that we can regard the Paladins of Asmodeus issue as a glaring reminder that print <> canon. Re: Pathfinder Society, I also agree with you that by and large, most judges will be cool with whatever you bring to the table, but the closer one is to any fine line, the more likely one is to find that line redrawn with oneself on the wrong side of it.

Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)

Cheers, Thanks. and good gaming.


Chris Mortika wrote:
...(I admit, I'm unfamiliar with any place where James recanted from the material in Council of Thieves, but honestly I wouldn't take a messageboard post as superceding written AP canon in any case.)...

Here's the relevant text from the thread in question:

Paladin Pathfinder Society thread
James Jacobs wrote:


Technically, it's a DEVELOPMENT error and not an editing error that the bit about paladins of Asmodeous slipped through into print. The whole "what is Lawful Good" and "what's okay to do as a paladin" scene is WAY too complicated as it stands without us confusing things more by saying a paladin can serve a lawful evil deity. It should have been changed before it saw print, but it slipped through.

Paladins of Asmodeus are, in any event, not allowed in the Pathfinder Society. They're fine in home games if the GM is cool with them. I would not be.

The original reference is (I believe) this:

Paladins of Asmodeus thread
James Jacobs wrote:


Funnyman21 wrote:
I feel like pointing out that no one is mentioning paladins of Asmodeus. In the write up for the god in the Mother of Flies module, number 29 for those kids without it, it says paladins of Asmodeus exist. Page 63-64 writes how Asmodeus pulls it off and why he has them.
Honestly, I am okay with this. I'm not a fan of paladins of Asmodeus, and had I noticed that bit before the volume went to print, I would have removed all mention of them.


I've been trying to figure out what bugs me about that whole Paladins of Asmodeus discussion thread. I'm not trying to argue for or against or even about Paladins of Asmodeus. That thread is closed. But the thread still bothers me.

On one side, you have posters insisting that a Paladin must be within x steps of their deity, otherwise they would lose all paladin-ness.
On another side, you have people talking about how a paladin doesn't need to serve any deity, per the rules and the campaign setting.
On another side you have people looking for reasons to kick people from their table and some others going off the deep end.
And then along comes James Jacobs who says that an entire section of the Council of Thieves AP was a "production error" and should never have been printed and should be ignored.

And I think that's what's bothering me most.

It brings a whole host of questions.

- Does the PDF still have this section?
- Is the book receiving errata?
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
- If I can't trust the printed material that I purchase to be canon, then what reason do I have for purchasing the printed material?
- If the PDF is not being re-edited to take out the section that should never have seen print, then why not? Why buy the PDF?
- If the rules as printed don't tell me enough to be able to know whether my character is legal or not for PFS play, then do I just show up and hope for the best?
- Is this an isolated event or should I expect to see a lot of this and just get used to it?
- What steps are or will be put in place to avoid this happening in the future? Or should I expect that how the setting works will be different depending on who is saying what in any particular thread?

Until very recently, I played in Living Forgotten Realms, and bought a whole host of WOTC 4e books. What drove me from their product and their organized play was (primarily) the fact that the rules had become a moving target. Put together a character today, and by next month, that character's feats, powers and class abilities might be entirely changed because some designer decided that he wanted the rules to work in a way that another designer had not wanted them to work. It made no sense to purchase a book because the amount of errata necessary to track in order to build a character began to outweigh the book itself. For a while, I printed out sections of errata and mounted them in the margins on the appropriate pages. Until whole pages needed replacing (stealth rules anyone?) Then I just kept the errata PDF on my ipad.

I've been recommending Pathfinder to a lot of people. I know of at least three different customers at my FLGS who bought into Pathfinder based on my recommendation. One of the big selling features that I'd been recommending to people about Pathfinder was the comparatively stable platform. No 100 pages of new errata every month to download, read and remember.

I'm not saying that Pathfinder has become 4e and I'm disgusted with it and am quitting Pathfinder, but I am concerned when designers begin to disavow the product as printed.

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. But I'm curious whether it's something that I'll have to deal with in the future again and again.


Airhead wrote:

I'm waving the BS flag.

We don't have an AI that you can simply insert the manual and have it design a fleet for you. Doug had to do a lot of work to turn the rules into something that the AI could work with. That alone would impart some sort of bias.

***

The fact that he was able to make a stationary torpedo mine field win is just showing the game designers the weakness of their game. If the objective was changed to "get past the opponents fleet" the enemy would just go around, or blow a path through his stationary fleet. Doug and his AI would lose.

***
As an old Battletech player, it was often the guy that loaded up on the little fast hover tank that won the game. Not pretty when the big walking bots are supposed to rule. But it would work and make die-hard players pull their hair out.

Two links:

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF0704/Johnson/Johnson.html (more detailed version of the story, giving insight into the programming methods)

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1056665 Published paper describing tournament, program. I don't have an ACM account, but the abstract is:

"During the month of June 1981, the EURISKO program was set the task of exploring the design of naval fleets conforming to a body of (several hundreds of) rules and constraints as set forward in Traveller: The Trillion Credit Squadron. EURISKO designed a fleet of ships suitable for entry in the 1981 Origins national wargame tournament, held at Dunfey's Hotel, in San Mateo, Ca., over July 4 weekend. The Traveller tournament, run by Game Designers Workshop (based in Normal, Illinois), was single elimination, six rounds. EURISKO's fleet won that tournament, thereby becoming the ranking player in the United States (and also an honorary Admiral in the Traveller navy). This win is made more significant by the fact that the program's creator, Professor Douglas Lenat of Stanford University's Heuristic Programming Project, had never played this game before, nor any miniatures battle game of this type."


Joshua J. Frost wrote:

The intent of the rule is to prevent folks from circumventing (a) the fact that we don't allow any Leadership-feat-type effects and (b) the purchasing and acquisition of items and wealth system.

The following are restorative effects that "fix" a character without touching either of the categories above:

Atonement, break enchantment, breath of life, clone, dispel magic (potentially), freedom, heal, raise dead, etc.

The following create things that can be used during the scenario but end at the conclusion of the scenario, thus preventing the circumvention of the categories above:

Bless water, create undead, curse water, fabricate, etc.

The following are spells that generally affect NPCs when cast by a PC so whether or not their effects are still in play isn't relevant to the greater rules:

Chill touch, contagion, disintegrate, feeblemind, flesh to stone, hallow, imprisonment, insanity, etc.

Joshua,

Thanks. Am I correct in assuming then that non-spell effects (ie Command Undead feat) also cease their effect at the end of the adventure?

I think the PSGOP would be well served by the inclusion of a paragraph something along the lines of:

"A character may only take out of the adventure gold or items specifically stated in the record. Spells, feats, or other effects that would create an item or beneficial effect that persists beyond the adventure will not do so. This is to prevent the creation of wealth not awarded in the adventure, which can upset the already difficult balance inherent in a shared world experience."


Austin Morgan wrote:
crmanriq wrote:

Atonement

Now, I'm not the most knowledgeable person with respect to the rules, but I do believe Atonement modifies your character permanently. Therefore, the 'spell' doesn't last until the end of game (instantaneous, correct?), but the modification for your character are permanent, and thus is still in place after the end of the scenario.

But I may be wrong :)

Yes. Almost my entire post is in regards to INSTANTANEOUS spells. Animate Dead and Atonement are both Instantaneous duration spells. Neither spell is still active at the end of the scenario.


I understand that any spell that you cast during a scenario ends at the end of the scenario.

I have two questions:

1) Spells with an instantaneous duration. The "ever popular" Animate Dead has an instantaneous duration, and would thus be over by the end of the scenario. Its after effect, the creation of the undead who is now possibly under the control of the caster would seem to be outside of the wording of the rule. Does this after-effect end at the end of the scenario?

2) The Feat "Command Undead" is not a spell, yet creates a lasting effect. Does this effect end at the end of the scenario?

which I guess places me into a third question:

3) If your rule is that both instantaneous duration's effect cease at the end of the scenario and that the feat's effect ends at the end of the scenario, then could this be specified/clarified in the next update of the PSGOP?

Also, how does this effect other instantaneous duration spells like "raise dead"? One would assume that the intent of:
Spell Duration - Simply put, any spell cast by a PC during a scenario ends at the end of that scenario. This does not apply to conditions a PC may have gained during the course of a scenario."

is not to mean that a character who is raised will fall dead again at the end of the scenario, but if the same standard is applied to both "Raise Dead" and "Animate Dead", then one would affect similar results.

Can or should there be a way to distinguish between instantaneous spells whose effects end at the end of a scenario, and spells whose effects do not end?

Given that the PSGOP has been modified slightly now to include the allowance of an Alchemist to create enduring magical effects, I'm still not entirely sure what your answer to 1 and 2 are, and am asking this as a clarification.

Many Thanks.

Addendum: Looking at spells with duration "Instantaneous" that might have implications if their effect ends at end-of-scenario, I also find (partial list):

Atonement
Bless Water
Break Enchantment
Breath of Life
Chill Touch
Clone
Contagion
Create Undead
Curse Water
Disintegrate
Dispel Magic
Fabricate
Feeblemind
Flesh to Stone
Freedom
Hallow
Heal
Imprisonment
Insanity
...


In PFS, can a character leave a feat slot open to fill at his next level?

Example - Could a paladin not take a feat at 5th level, anticipating taking the Lunge feat when he would qualify for it at 6th level?

This would in effect handicap him for one level (not filling a feat slot that he was entitled to fill) in order to not wait one level past the time that he would qualify for that feat.


Joseph Raiten wrote:

or maybe adding in a rake evolution instead of or in addition to rend... but that would be: claw, claw, rend, rake

and i would not allow attacking with hind legs... how would they stay standing? with both front legs and back legs swinging at the target?

Who says it needs to stay standing? The serpentine evolution has no legs, yet it can make attacks. It could even take a limbs(arms) or limbs(legs) evolution and then take claws and attack.

I think the problem is that you are trying to look at the eidolon as if it were an animal that you have seen before. It isn't. It's a "fantastical creature". Try to imagine something with a prehensile body, multiple sets of tails, arms, legs, any of which can be used for multiple purposes. Perhaps it pounces, resting on a pseudopodal protuberance from the body and attacks with all limbs. Perhaps any tail it has is actually forward facing. Perhaps it has multiple tails facing in cardinal directions. Perhaps it doesn't even have a head, but has a gaping maw in its body with razor sharp teeth.


deathmaster wrote:
crmanriq wrote:

I missed that. That makes claws much much better, given that spending one point on it gives you two primary attacks.

I would hope your GM would say no to buying claw attacks for the back legs, it ranks up there with a biped buying claws for their feet.

Given that the eidolon is a "fantastic" creature, capable of having multiple pairs of arms, legs, or even multiple tails, and that there is no limitation in the rules that claw attacks are limited to the limbs(arms) evolution, I don't see any expectation that a claw attack should be limited to just arms.

While the final version of the Summoner class may include such a limitation, it does not currently exist as far as I can find in the PDF, or in Jason's online updates.


Ceefood wrote:
remember claws are primary attacks now not secondary - it was fixed

I missed that. That makes claws much much better, given that spending one point on it gives you two primary attacks.

It's not on the sticky for the summoner update. Do you have a link to the update on that?


Joseph Raiten wrote:
crmanriq wrote:
cp wrote:

In several places regarding the eidolon it states that the eidolon must have appropriate appendages, to use an evolution pool.

Usually I would say - arems are necessary. However if you have a tail I would probably allow some weaposn to be used.

Re-looking at the evolutions, the "arms" evolution states that arms with hands will allow the eidolon to wield weapons. So this is an indirect statement of the requirement.

On further review, it really seems like the pounce evolution combined with multiple claw evolutions (with improved natural attack) might make a formidable melee fighter.

pounce, bite, trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, rend.

and that combo would cost a bipedal eilodon 8 evo points (6th required to get rend)but can't be given to bipeds ... only quadrapeds ... and then it costs 6 evo points but still won't be complete till 6th... and that is if your dm lets you attack with the back legs... otherwise they will need axtra limbs and that is once again 8 evo...

so you declare a charge using pounce... bite and trip... then take the full attack (this might include another bite and trip) 4 claws and as long as 2 hit a rend.

but once again the rend won't come till 6th...

impressive indead

Points

(bite) - free with quad
(limbs) x 2 - free with quad
claws (front legs) - 1 pt.
claws (rear legs) - 1 pt.
trip - 1 pt.
pounce - 1 pt.
improved damage (claw) - 1pt.

So far we're only at level 3 (5 points), which gives:

pounce, bite, trip, claw, claw, claw, claw

4th level - add another limbs for 2 pts (+10 speed)
5th level - add another claw attack

pouce, bite (1d6), trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw (1d4)

6th level - add large or rend, remove trip?

pouce, bite (1d8), trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw (1d6)

hmm. Only problem is that the claws are secondary attacks, and even with multiattack, they are still at -2 with 1/2 strength bonus.

If we could go a biped,

We could go:

Slam (arms) - 1pt. Primary attack (1d8)
Bite - 1pt. Primary attack (1d6)
Claw (legs) - free
Tail - 1pt.
Sting - 1pt. Primary attack(1d4)
Improved damage (sting) - 1pt

3rd level:
Bite, slam, claw, claw, sting

If we go serpentine

We could go

bite - free
tail slap - free (secondary)
sting (tail) - 1pt.
tail - 1pt.
sting (tail) - 1pt
improved damage (sting) - 1pt.
tail slap - 1pt. (secondary)

3rd level:
bite, sting, sting, tail slap, tail slap

The nice thing about the sting and bite is that at 7th level, we can pick up poison, and do multiple poison attacks. We can take improved damage (poison) and up the damage to d6's. I'm not sure whether or not it's worth the 2 extra points to make it CON damage.

I keep coming back to the serpentine as a viable form. Especially if we take weapon finesse as a feat, using dex for attacks on natural weapons.


cp wrote:

In several places regarding the eidolon it states that the eidolon must have appropriate appendages, to use an evolution pool.

Usually I would say - arems are necessary. However if you have a tail I would probably allow some weaposn to be used.

Re-looking at the evolutions, the "arms" evolution states that arms with hands will allow the eidolon to wield weapons. So this is an indirect statement of the requirement.

On further review, it really seems like the pounce evolution combined with multiple claw evolutions (with improved natural attack) might make a formidable melee fighter.

pounce, bite, trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, rend.


Malikor wrote:

About the removal of the sentance that says "cast as a standard action" you have to remember, that a spell-like ability is already a standard action unless otherwise noted (it does not meantion this in the Pathfinder RPG book, but it does in the Bestiary). So what they are doing is removing extranious information, streamlinging everything, like they have done in the PRPG book in the first place.

I too think maybe a summoner's summon monster spells and spell-like abilities should have the Extend spell feat applied to them automatically.

from the PRD:

"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell."

So if the spell is listed as having a casting time of 1 round, the spell-like-ability will also have a 1 round casting time.


1) "An eidolon secretes toxic venom, gaining a poison attack. Pick a
bite or sting attack. Whenever the eidolon makes a successful attack of the selected type, the target is poisoned."

Can an eidolon with the poison evolution apply their own poison to weapons?

2) "Weapon Training (Ex): An eidolon learns to use a weapon, gaining Simple Weapon Proficiency as a bonus feat. If 1 additional evolution point is spent, it gains proficiency with all martial weapons as well."

There does not seem to be a requirement that the eidolon possess the Arms evolution in order to wield weapons. Is there such a requirement, or is the ever-changing form of the eidolon assumed to be adaptable enough to wield without arms?


brock wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Can I Call My Guy Drizzt? wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
I have thought about the Kindle before, but I want a reader where the screen size matches the size of a standard gaming book, 8.5" x 11". I have yet to find an e-book reader that has that large of a screen though. I do not like scrolling left and right or up and down on my pc screen to see an entire page and I do not want to have to do the same thing on an e-book reader either.
You'd probably be looking at a Tablet PC right now. I don't know of any eBook readers with a screen that size.
Yeah, that is what I was afraid of, because of the cost. But I would rather have a tablet pc than have to get and lug around a notebook pc or a netbook.
iRex DR1000S is available now and Plastic Logic are releasing a reader in that size category next year. The tablet PC may well be cheaper as the iRex is £600 at the moment.

I bought a Kindle DX about 2 weeks ago. (well, I got it a week ago as a birthday/xmas present) I'm still deciding whether or not I want to keep it.

It's slightly smaller than a 8.5x11 sheet of paper. For straight text, it's pretty awesome.

For PDF's - It will shrink the pdf of core rules or bestiary (or any other pdf game book I have) to fit the screen. For some games with smaller text (pathfinder being one), this creates readability issues. You can turn the screen to landscape mode, and the text will be pretty close to actual book size. You cannot zoom in either mode. (The pdf support is pretty basic).

Some pdf books take much longer to switch pages on than others. WOTC 4e books switch pages fairly quickly, but Paizo books are much slower (3-5 seconds?) I believe it is because of the extensive graphics that Paizo puts in. (I love the graphics, but in this instance, it might be nicer to not have quite so much).

Other general remarks:

Directory structure. I really wish that it wasn't a flat directory structure (you can put things in subdirectories, but they still all appear on the same table of contents.) Right now, my home page table of contents is 14 pages longs. You can order alphabetically, or by author or by most recent, but it's still a lot of paging to get anywhere you want to go.

Web browser. There is a free wireless broadband web browser. It's slow. It's flaky. It can't go to a lot of sites. (Can't visit wizards.com at all.)

Speed. This thing is slow. Going to d20srd.org, it's practically locked up. Sometimes it does seem to freeze for a long time on graphics intensive pdf's.

Screensaver. If you don't touch any buttons for about 10 minutes, it goes to screensaver. This makes no sense as it only requires power to change pages, not to maintain pages, on e-ink. You can't turn off the screensaver. I'd like it a lot more if I could simply set it down and come back in an hour or tomorrow to the exact same screen. Instead it cycles through a bunch of artsy greyscale images. (Like I really want Jane Austin on the cover of any book I'm reading...)

I really want to like it. I've got all my shadowrun, paizo, wotc and deadlands books on it. This is the largest screen currently available. I just wish:

1) Get rid of flat file system.
2) Ditch the screensaver.
3) Put mozilla on the thing. It's running linux fercrissakes.
4) Put the linux pdf reader on it. It would be better than what it currently has.


Greyson wrote:
crmanriq wrote:
Has anyone done any conversion work on PFS modules to LFR format?
I took Edge of Anarchy, "converted" it to 4E, broke it into several MYRE1-1 adventures and set it in Baldur's Gate to make the whole affair a Living Forgotten Realms story arc. It worked out well and we had a lot of fun running two or three tables of each part.

Cool. Any problems from RPGA with the "no reskinning" rule in the MYRE adventure guidelines? (Just noticed that after I posted.)


Okay, cryptic title.

Here's the gist. Living Forgotten Realms allows DM's to run their own adventures for the shared world. I'd love to be able to run some of the Pathfinder Society modules as LFR adventures. (Kind of hoping to bring people over to paizo by showing them how well written Paizo's adventures are.)

Has anyone done any conversion work on PFS modules to LFR format?

Thanks


Preface: I've played some Living Greyhawk, a lot of Living Forgotten Realms, some Pathfinder Society and have run some of each of the three.

Cons:
1) Players know what's coming and might metagame, thus reducing the experience for all.
2) Players not wishing to metagame might coast, allowing those who haven't played the scenario to be the active participants.

Pros:

1) There are relatively few PFS scenarios, and it is becoming harder and harder to do a regular PFS game where someone hasn't played in Scenario X.
2) Sometimes having a player replay a scenario means the difference between 4 people getting to play and 3 people going home without having played at all.
3) Allowing people to play the scenario with multiple characters allows someone to not feel locked into one character.
4) Answering Cons#1 - There is no restriction on who can read a scenario before playing in it. A player who will metagame by repeating a scenario is probably similarly likely to do so by either reading spoilers or the scenario itself.
5) Answer to Cons#2 - Perhaps not so bad a thing. This might encourage newer players (those who haven't played in a given scenario) to be more active roleplayers and that the experienced players might not dominate the table.
6) If the goal is to get people playing PFS in larger and larger numbers, anything that enables them to do so should be seen as "a good thing". Rules that prevent players from playing should be seen as "a bad thing."


James Jacobs wrote:
crmanriq wrote:
In the Bonus Bestiary, Ascomoid has Improved Overrun, while not meeting the prerequisite of having Power Attack.

The monsters in the Bonus Bestiary were created long before we had the format down for the actual Bestiary, and even before we had all of the actual rules of the RPG itself locked down. So there's a certain amount of inaccuracy in the Bonus Bestiary; I'm pretty sure that all of these monsters will make it in to the Bestiary 2 next summer though, at which point the errors will be tended to.

Now, that said, the case of the Ascomoid's Improved Overrun is NOT an error. It's a bonus feat (indicated as such by the superscript B after the feat). As a creature without an Intelligence score, an Ascomoid doesn't get feats or skill ranks; we gave it Improved Overrun as a bonus feat because it fits so well with its role and flavor. As a bonus feat, it doesn't need to qualify for it with prerequisites; it just has the feat. No strings attached.

Again. Thanks!


James Jacobs wrote:
crmanriq wrote:

Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack are both listed as possible feats for animal companions.

There is no rules text for either of these feats.

Should we assume the same text as 3.5?

Yeah; those feats are in the Bestiary; it does indicate as much in the "Animal Feats" section on page 53 of the PRPG. I'm relatively certain that they work exactly they way they do in the 3.5 SRD, in any case.

Thanks for the quick answer. Followup:

In the Bonus Bestiary, Ascomoid has Improved Overrun, while not meeting the prerequisite of having Power Attack.

Is this an exception for Ascomoid, Creatures in general (it's listed as a possible feat for animal companions), or simply an oversight?


Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack are both listed as possible feats for animal companions.

There is no rules text for either of these feats.

Should we assume the same text as 3.5?


hogarth wrote:

I'm not sure what the problem is in the first place. Why don't you just buy +1 studded leather barding for your animal companion? It has an armor check penalty of 0, so any animal can wear it with no penalty (whether the animal is proficient with barding or not).

But assuming you can have an animal with an Int of 3 (hard to say without looking at the Bestiary), it should be legal, I think.

Duh. No armor check penalty.

That means I don't need "Armor Proficiency (light)" and can spend the feat on something really fun like "Eschew Materials" <g>


Here's something I'd like to throw out.

I played a cleric during playtest. Our playtest group leader wrote regular reports on what he thought worked, and didn't work.

Nobody in our playtest group thought the beta cleric was in any way overpowered.

How many of those currently praising the removal of heavy armor proficiency from clerics either:

1) playtested a cleric?
2) currently play a cleric?
3) plan on playing a cleric in Pathfinder?

One of the few saving graces that cleric's have had was the ability to walk out to the front line and heal the tanks. And then to help hold the line while the tank struggled to his feet.

The argument has been made of "big deal, if you want Heavy Armor, take the feat." Well, at low levels is where the cleric is most vulnerable. Which means taking the feat at low level, which means a first or third level cleric is spending all or half of his feats just to retain the means to do his job, and is now weaker than other members of the party who are already taking feats to define their character.

Fighter: I'm taking a nifty feat so that my charges do X.
Rogue: I'm taking an awesome feat so that my sneak attack is more effective:
Wizard: I'm taking a metamagic or item creation feat!
Cleric: I'm taking armor proficiency (heavy) so that I can survive.

As I said, I playtested a cleric during the beta. I probably won't be playing one in the final version.


Deussu wrote:

I personally dislike all save-or-suck money sink monsters with a passion. The cockatrices are easy themselves, but come with a possible money loss of 660gp. And the Society isn't there to help. Great.

I have to say my Halfling bard/ranger was very delighted to kill Sefu, especially after he proved to be one of Aspis. The joke is we had been talking about Aspis from the start and my halfling is paranoid about Aspis in every corner. "I'm sure Aspis is behind this!"

We managed to clear the assassin vine with ease, thanks to our group of extreme summoners. Even an assassin vine will bow down to 2 dire bats and 3 apes.

The placement of the cocatries at the first encounter of the adventure was unfortunate. I had a player whose wizard was turned to stone on the single hit the cockatrices scored (he rolled a 1 on the die). I allowed him to roleplay his familiar for the rest of the adventure, which made the night a less-than-disaster for him. I was surprised to see that an experienced pathfinder who regarded the trices as pets wouldn't have a supply of stone-to-flesh ointment available for the unavailable accident that his lab assistant might encounter, so I provided such in the lab equipment.

It was somewhat strange running this, as our group will not be playing again before gencon and season 2 begins. Assuming that every PC at the table will undergo a radical change with the season 2 and new pathfinder rules, I was especially inclined to make this a "fun" event, rather than a sour note to end season 1.


Bitter Thorn wrote:

Has anyone played with quickened turning applied to the new channel energy?

If so, how did it play?

I've played a cleric with quicken turning applied to channel energy.

It really didn't seem overpowered to me, even when using Selective Channeling so that only allies got healed.

In the big fights that really needed healing, it was there to keep usually the tank alive and still be able to do something like bless, or protection from evil. One channel per turn only buys so much, and it wasn't like I was taking anyone out with it, I was simply keeping the team alive.


Re: Intimidating Glare

If the fear effects that stacked in the beta still stack, this could prove to be an overwhelming ability.

Round 1: Attack. Move Action Glare (Shaken for X rounds)
Round 2: Attack. Move Action Glare (Shaken becomes frightened and will try to flee)
Round 3: (If opponent still present.) Attack. Move Action Glare (Frightened becomes Panicked and will cower if it cannot flee)


Last week, when I heard that the pdf would be priced at $10 (okay, $9.99), the first thing I did was tell my local store owner that I would be able to buy the book directly from him.

With his discount to people who pre-order and pre-pay, I will end up paying just about the same for book and pdf that I would by subscribing at Paizo and getting the book for free.

But this allows me to support the store that I spend so much (too much) time in.

Thanks.


Elyza wrote:
Dogbert wrote:

Quoting the PF Campaign Setting: "Some paladins serve Abadar, Irori, or Shelyn, but paladins who serve no specific god are actually more common." which means a paladin of Aroden is still pretty much fair game, if that's your actual calling... I mean, people still study careers like Art's History even now so why not? (lol j/k for those with an actual major in that).

Clergy, however, is another matter entirely, as golarian clerics require a functional, specific god so yeah, like Gamer Girrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl said, the remains of Aroden's clergy are nowadays powerless and resorting to arcane trinkets.

I would say both clerics and paladins are allowed. This is how I see it. All religions are hierarchical. There is a direct "line of faith" to the top, but to get actual favors, the priest asks of the bishop, the bishop asks of the arch bishop, etc. So too must be the distribution of energy and power. No one consciousness is going to be able to deal with thousands or millions of petitioners for power at the same time, especially if they all want to do it at dawn. Therefore, the power distribution going down the chain would be deity, immortals, celestials, then clerics. The immortals and maybe even the more powerful celestials would be able to regenerate their own raw positive energy, like a sorcerer who regenerates by sleeping. Then, there is the faith energy coming up the chain from clerics and followers which is converted into refined spell energy. This would be naturally less than normal, so the celestials and immortals will have to work harder for a while to "finance" the church's power pyramid. But, they would be able to empower a select few who stand out and generate the faith.

So Aroden has died. Many of those in the upper chain who served him might have also been hunted and slaughtered. But, if even just a few have survived, they could start rebuilding the church with a few chosen mortals. With "Imbue Spell Ability" or higher versions...

Not to bring in 4e to the argument, but this is also in issue in the LFR campaign setting, with clerics and paladins of Mystra. (LFR has recently specifically ruled out both, but their error is not germane to my post <g>).

I can very much see a player/character taking this position:

"When I entered the service of my god, I pledged my sword, my life and my honor in her service. Such an oath is not to be broken or amended. I do not know if my mistress is truly dead, or simply slumbering, waiting to rise again. I do know that for all the days of my life I will serve her. It is for theologians to debate where my powers come from, if not from her. I see it as a sign that she yet lives. Others may speculate to the theoretical nature of divine power, and bonds that cannot be broken. Yet even if she is truly gone, and she no longer has power to give me, my lady had allies and friends among the deities, and I suspect that they too might be honoring her by allowing me to act in her name."


Logos wrote:

covered in the first post

forced movement on mounted creatures can drag the mount along for free.

Its the tele on mounted creatures that is more the problem.

Yes, but the converse of that rule isn't in DMG. It's not in the book, but it's probably an easy houserule that forced movement of the mount will move the rider.

Except that houserules can vary wildly from DM to DM. Especially in something like Living Forgotten Realms.

Looking at the DMG, the interesting question (to me) that comes up is. If you are mounted and knocked prone, you get a saving throw. If you succeed, you stay mounted and are not knocked prone. Do dwarfs get 2 saving throws? One for being a dwarf and one for being mounted. It seems that it would be very tough to knock a mounted dwarf prone.


Logos wrote:

Looked over my 4th edition stuff, and yeah it doesn't seem to be covered.

something interesting i found however is that forced movement specifically bans vertical movement.

that said considering that they get different sections and forced movement seems to me to be slang for push/pull/slide I would say they are different.

Double check what the power itself says (powers that teleport an enemy are pretty rare, whats the name ) and roll with it to the best of your ability?

chances are you might have to deal with 1 tele-dismount a combat which is not so horrible.

Hmm. I'm thinking about area of effect spells that target all creatures in a burst, and have a "Push the target x squares" effect.

What happens if you hit the rider but not the mount, or vice versa?

This doesn't target one but not the other, per the DMG rule.

And there are a lot of AOE's that force movement. Both for players and monsters.


Just to lighten things up...

I always liked the idea of using Flesh To Salt (from Sandstorm) on my enemies and then selling the salt at 5gp per pound (PHB prices. Okay, even at half price, it's still 2.5 gp per pound of enemy.)

Orc: "What are you looking at?"
PC: "Just trying to figure out how much you weigh."
Orc: "I weigh about 200 pounds, why?"
PC: "Oh, no reason."

I always thought that in a low-treasure campaign, the PC's could make out like bandits.

DM: "You kill the horde of gnolls, but find only a few gold pieces on their bodies."
PC: "Okay, we cast Flesh to Salt, and break out the sledgehammers and mortars."


(Couldn't resist the title.)

So my players got to the alchemy lab in the undercrypt last night and faced the mold. (We're playing a Pathfinderized version of LoF).

Given the mold's -3 to hit with its slam attack, and an even worse grapple, I'm wondering if it is intended that a PC become the moldspeaker, or if it mostly never happens.

I was really hoping that one pc would become infected, but alas - no.

Is there any real advantage to the party to have a moldspeaker in later chapters? Should I retcon one of the pc's getting infected?

Any opinions?

Thanks!


DigitalMage wrote:
Krome wrote:
And in Pathfinder there is the feat Step Up. Archer takes 5' step, melee guy follows right on his heels.
Can you provide a reference for this, it sounds cool and unlike Pursue I am assuming doesn't cost an Action Point. Can it be used more than once per encounter?

Step Up feat description


I wonder if the first real indication that Dark Sun is getting 4e release will be at athas.org.

Here's the statement that is at the bottom of there webpage (has been for a long time):

"This site is recognized by WotC as the Official Dark Sun site on the internet. Content created on the official website is considered to be derivative work (as it is based on the intellectual property owned by Wizards of the Coast). This means that fan-created add-ons (such as new net books, adventures, etc.) are jointly owned by both Wizards of the Coast and the creator; neither can do anything outside the official website without the permission of the other."

I'm guessing that once Wotc decides to publish new Dark Sun material, this site will lose whatever license they have.


Tr0ki wrote:

Hi,

I'm fairly new to Pathfinder Beta. My DM got the manual for playtesting and he has converted all our PCs and it works fine.
But, when reading the spells to compare what has changed from the D&D 3.5, we have become quite confused about the description of level 2 Darkness spell. After carefully reading its description in Pathfinder Beta, the conclusion is that the spell creates darkness where there is actually natural darkness. What is more, like in natural darkness, any illumination works fine within it. So what would be the purpose of casting darkness?.
We here are quite confused and think it is a clear error in the spell description.
What do you think?

P.D: I've looked for any posts about this issue but found none, and I don't know if this is the correct place to post this. But since the playtesting boards are closed...

Yes, the spell darkness in the beta is much different than the 3.5 spell darkness (as is Deeper Darkness).

It functions as a negative torch, rather than giving concealment to everything.

I don't have a problem with it, but I don't know if it's going to be the same in the final product.


French Wolf wrote:

The only quirk that is kind of personal to me relates to dice. All of mine are the same (chessex fire - red with yellow spots and black numbers). Thats because, I've always said that dice roll randomly and so don't want to have favorite D20s and so on.

I think it's because I teach maths, but the result is whenever I go to a con or gameshop I'm looking for one sort of dice. If I see one I buy it.

Pretty much everyone I have ever played with has different coloured D20s and you occasionally see them flung across the room in frustration when they let the player down.

In a similar vein, the guys I play with have one taboo. Never touch their dice. If you do then the luck runs out. As the DM, they often come over and touch mine after I've rolled particularly well. Of course, I don't mind so everyone is happy.

Cheers

I've got a similar (recent) die quirk. I was cleaning out my shed about 9 months ago, and came across my original D&D dice from 1984 that had been put away untouched for at least 23 years. I've been using those almost exclusively lately. (except when I need extra d6's or d4's to roll damage).

I would (only slightly) dispute the "dice roll randomly", only from a physics standpoint. If you've ever seen the Gamescience dice booth at Gencon, they have a display showing a stack of d20 from Chessex versus a stack of their d20's. Apparently the polishing tumblers that most dice manufacturers use to smooth out the edges will wear the die faces unevenly, resulting in some faces having more surface area than others. This results in some degree of patterns in the rolls of any one die. It's probably on the order of some numbers coming up a few percent more often than others, and nothing to dispute in a game. (It's probably not at all related to the "this die comes up 20's more than any of my other dice" feeling - that's probably more superstition than reality.)


Charles Scholz wrote:

Has anyone made a Paizo version of the TGM Cards? I use them all the time, but they were made for 3.0 and don't fit well with PFRPG.

I tried to make some, but my skills are lacking. If someone does attempt it, make them bigger so more information can go on them. Also, a small square is all that is needed for HP as most GMs can keep track on the maps or the backs of the cards.

I actually just put together a pdf. You can find it at the bottom of this page: PFOGC Links


Chris Mortika wrote:

Pathfinder Society scenarios are not supposed to be cakewalks. Characters, particularly careless ones, can die.

At my tables, NPC strategy depends on (a) their mental stats, Intelligence in particular, and (b) their intent and purpose, as the NPCs understand it.

If the NPC wasn't expecting a fight with the party, then I play their reaction as impetuous. Likely as not, they'll try to flee rather than engage an unknown and violent opponent. Likewise, two NPCS who just happen to find themselves in the same area, both fighting the party, have no reason to coordinate their attacks.

If a team of NPCs has anticipated the fight, I'll have them fight to their best ability. In the case you cite, or in n encounter with halfling snipers firing from cover while the PCs are in melee, i'd have the archers concentrate on the spellcasters first.

If this kills the spellcasters, and thereafter the party, that may be "less fun" in the short run, but it encourages the players to run tighter melee tactics with their new characters.

Wow. A little more bloodthirsty than I would expect. (Not that bloodthirsty is a bad thing, it just surprised me.) While I hate killing characters, I do understand that acting stupid can get you killed, and PFS is no exception.

Of course, taking down a spellcaster probably won't actually drop them to dead, especially at lower tiers. But it will probably make the players a lot more cautions for the rest of the adventure.


Doug Doug wrote:
crmanriq wrote:

So I'm running Perils of the Pirate Pact tonight, and in reading through the module, there are combats where the tactics are 'half the pirates engage in melee while the other half use their bows'.

As a player, the smart thing is to have your artillery concentrate fire on the players who need to be taken out first, then move down the target list. Somewhat the same with melee. Have two players flank an enemy to increase their chances of hitting (or provide support for the rogue).

I've always disliked stupid villains, but it strikes me that this tactic could take down party members, thus decreasing the "fun level" of the event.

So my question is, how do other DM's run combat? Do you use sound tactics, or do you run mindless minions? Or something in between?

#17 is a pretty cheesecake scenario, so I usually take the gloves off when I run it. [spoiler]The problem with the first act is that no player wants to sit on their behinds when they know a combat is approaching. They are going to try and interrupt the boxed text. Go ahead and let them shoot at the approaching pirates and take some out. Then when the grappling hooks are thrown and the PC's vessel is boarded, add some more pirates to bring the encounter back up to strength.

I use intelligent tactics when I run humanoid opponents. I like to have the archers take the toughest-looking PCs down first, but shooting into melee is a losing proposition. Smart PCs will take cover behind railings or masts. The pirates onboard the PC's ship will always use flank to help them out. I like to have one pirate move up to a PC and ready an action to strike when he gets a flanker, then have a second pirate move up and complete the circuit. If the PC steps out from cover or out of melee, then the archers let him have it.

If my dice start getting hot then I back off and have the pirates waste some actions rather than go for the throat. I'll have pirates make intimidate checks or disarm the PCs rather than try to...

Some very good ideas. I like the idea of letting the PC's shoot from a distance, but then adding pirates to keep the challenge up. I guess the other side of the coin might be that if the PC's fire from distance, all of the pirates could as well, with half switching to swords as the boats close.


So I'm running Perils of the Pirate Pact tonight, and in reading through the module, there are combats where the tactics are 'half the pirates engage in melee while the other half use their bows'.

As a player, the smart thing is to have your artillery concentrate fire on the players who need to be taken out first, then move down the target list. Somewhat the same with melee. Have two players flank an enemy to increase their chances of hitting (or provide support for the rogue).

I've always disliked stupid villains, but it strikes me that this tactic could take down party members, thus decreasing the "fun level" of the event.

So my question is, how do other DM's run combat? Do you use sound tactics, or do you run mindless minions? Or something in between?

1 to 50 of 195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.