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

kinevon's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 4,623 posts (5,789 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 37 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

You resurrected a thread from 5 years ago, when the rules were different.

You haven't needed an X+1 weapon for several printings now.

FTFY

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muser wrote:
Fox McAllister wrote:


Hehe, I remember that. Honestly can't say that I was surprised. As for the Burst of Radiance ban idea, I'd give that thought a solid "no". Arcane casters shouldn't be the only ones that have viable AoE options for spell damage.
It's a Ref or Blind effect that works on constructs and undead, also the bigger the foe the worse their save bonus is and blindness wrecks combat monsters etc. If having burst damage is a priority, there's always sound burst. If burst of radiance is unnegotiable, at least have it target Fortitude.

I object to it on the grounds that a burst of light shouldn't be able to damage anything that is blind, even if it is evil.

My first encounter with it was when someone cast it on an evil ooze.

Explain to me how something based on light can harm something that cannot see light.

Searing Light, at least, has the excuse that it is a ray, so it emulates a laser.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would think the rebuild rules posted in the old blog banning several archetypes would still be the ones that apply:

Mike Brock wrote:

With that said, I understand the time investment and care put into a character’s background and the planning that goes along with making sure the character fits exactly how you envision him. If you have a character affected by the changes above, I am offering a rebuild along the following guidelines:

  • You may rebuild any class levels affected, to levels of other classes as necessary. (For example, if you have a 10th-level character with one level of rogue and nine levels of the synthesist summoner archetype, you may rebuild the nine summoner levels into any other class or another summoner archetype).
  • You may retrain any feats that directly apply to the changes above as necessary.
  • You may sell affected equipment for the full price paid when you purchased them (as listed on past Chronicle sheets).

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My whip-wielding, combat reflexed Lore Warden fighter thought it was amusing watching them drop in on the curtains....

Bwhahahaha!

Sorry, it was the <redacted> that gave us the most trouble, but you expect that of that kind of beasty. Wings, nasty breath, spells, obscene AC, high hit points, etc. Although his lair mitigated against him.

His absence, later, made the Aspis much easier to deal with.

Grand Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:
And you directly contradict yourself. When you figure that out get back to me.

Explain. Nowhere do I contradict myself.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Were you able to post your response fast enough, Robert? ;) He had to languish a whole minute waiting for it!

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Add in that trait that gives you a touch range version of Stabilize, which moves into Su or Ex, not an SLA, IIRC....

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quadstriker wrote:

Did anyone link this yet?

Guide to PFS Organized Play

I'm still trying to figure how we (meaning Paizo and the community) can better make it clear that this document is the *first* resource to consult, and that it *really does* answer the questions you have.

Any thoughts?

No one had posted the actual link (and I linkified yours), but it was mentioned upthread.

Maybe add the suggestion to the discussion going on on how top make the Additional Resources link more obvious, and better named, that the Guide link should be enlarged to make it more obvious?

Grand Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For a new GM, as a single module play, consider Crypt of the Everflame. It has some really nice sidebars explaining the mechanics of Pathfinder, and is designed, at least at the beginning, for new 1st level PCs.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

... the GM opens the conversation by asking the table, "So, do you want me to run the Confirmation or Wounded Wisp next session?"

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Grandmaster torch got burned (literally) by the machinations of the higher ups. Those machinations, whether from a venture captain or even one of the ten themselves, get people killed. That's bad for the society. Getting rid of management that does that is a good thing for the society as a whole, even if its probably not going to be pleasant for that high ranking individual.

Ummm. No he did not get burned by the machinations of the upper levels of the Society.

He got burned because he ignored, as soooo many Pathfinders do, the warning, "This place is dangerous. Be careful. Unfortunately, because of issues between the Society and local government, we are not going to be able to support you if you screw up too badly. So, DON'T SCREW UP!"

Guess what? Ven and his team managed to screw up. Pretty damn badly, in fact. I have seen that level of screwing up in only one of the many scenarios I have played and GMed in, and that was a group infiltrating a city in Irrisen, staying around and fighting the ever-mounting numbers of local guards, instead of taking off quickly. And even that only ended up with one member of the group arrested, the rest finally figuring it out and fleeing.

Ven's group managed to set off a bunch of traps, including the one that hurt him. How is a group, warned that they are going someplace dangerous, not to blame when they don't take that warning seriously?

Neither the Venture Captain, nor the Decemvirate can hold your hand while you are on a mission, and having perfect knowledge means either the mission is not required, or they have other assets that could do the mission safer than you could. And that includes GMT, whose information sources could have performed the mission while gathering the information that kept you safe...

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if I mentioned this before, but thank you and your cohorts for doing this.

Watching form the sidelines on comments on coding issues, and playing with it for some of my PCs, is interesting and informative.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Woran wrote:
...the map is too big to fit on the table...

And the map is just two sheets from a map pack, not even a flip-mat...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Randarak wrote:
Snorb wrote:

I didn't, I only ran the game. (Said game also involved an anthropomorphic penguin whose two primary languages were Penguin and "(slowly imitating throat slashing)."

Ziggy said he took the cleric levels just so he could get more uses of Channel Positive Energy than what the paladin levels he took gave him. (And yes, he had both Extra Channel and Extra Lay on Hands.)

Please tell me the penguin's name was Oswald, Cobblepot, Burgess, or Meredith.

You Joker, you!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depending on the kind of archer you are, there are a few things that an efficient quiver can help resolve:

Single target with 60 arrows for abundant ammunition
It can hold fairly large quantities of mixed ammunition types, without adding to your weight.

And, while it doesn't seem to apply in your case, some GMs can go into conniptions if your PC has what they consider to be "too many" quivers.

Also, just think about how many arrows you could have with 4 of these babies, instead of four mundane quivers. 240 arrows, instead of a paltry 80. Remember that, at higher levels, you can easily start going through a lot of arrows in a single round, not even counting any AoOs that Snap Shot might grant.

11th level, full BAB class:
11/6/1, three shots for a base attack
Make it 4 with Manyshot
9/9/4/-1, 5 arrows with Rapid Shot
10/10/10/5/0, 6 arrows with haste or a Speed weapon.

Suddenly, 80 arrows becomes only 13 full round attacks, not counting, as I mentioned AoAs or other factors that can give extra bowshots.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

I believe there is a thing called too much buffing and every character should have a small contribution to damage.

With a bard like the OP has the banner of kings + bardic performance + haste is more than enough for most encouters. Other buffs like resist energy, protection from x are more situational and not needed every fight. The rest of your spell list should be utility like invisiblity.

A good way for a bard like yours to get some good damage is a wand of scorching ray or abmonishing ray. Rays are considered weapons and you get bardic performance+ banner + haste bonuses to hit and damage on the ray. 4d6+_ is still good damage up to level 11 at which point discordiant voice kicks in another 1d6 to the ray.

Too much buffing? Is that even possible?

Seriously, however, this bard would be contributing, indirectly, to damage.

Every time someone hit because of his bonus to hit, he contributes to damage.
Every time someone who hits gets the extra damage on their attack, he contributes to damage.
Remember, too, that the damage he contributes also gets multiplied on a critical, so yet more damage.

Have him worship Desna, use a high crit range weapon, and take Butterfly's Sting, and pass the crits on to your ally with an x4 critical weapon...

Oh, my. Had a new thought. Coordinate that Butterfly Sting PC with a mounted charging build PC, and watch the one-shots... "Yeah, your first attack that hits is automatically goijng to be a crit. Yeah, charge, lance, yadda yadda. x5 or 6? Nice."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Classses wrote:
When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level's class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats. For more information on when you gain new feats and ability score increases, see Table: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses.

Page 30 of the CRB, or at Classes in the Paizo PRD.

1) Select your new class level
2) Apply ability score increase, if applicable
3) Gain or upgrade class abilities
4) Gain additional hit points
5) Gain skill ranks
6) Gain new feats

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kigvan wrote:

If the item is fully printed on the chronicle sheet then the sheet becomes a valid additional resource for the item.

If the item is only listed on the sheet with a source and page number then the player must provide that source to use the item.

So some items will not require the tech guide but others might.

Just like any other non-Core item or spell that is available on a Chronicle sheet. The Chronicle unlocks that specific item or items, possibly in a limited quantity, for that specific Core PC.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tim Statler wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Yeah, tyop, Unwelcome Halo (I keep getting it mixed up with Unnatural Lust).

It is vitally important that you tell us when, with whom, and under what circumstances, this has occurred.

Or just PM me the details - I won't tell. ^_^

Oh, I'm sure you know how the Paracountess' parties tend to go well enough to extrapolate. It was a bit of a change of pace after the initial confusion of Shapeshift Starday, though!
But was it cast on a succubus?

I thought that it was supposed to be cast on the naked Druidess...

And that would resolve all the controversy about willing to not. ;)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And, suddenly, I am back, watching an encounter at a bridge, with the question of what the flying speed of a Swallow is....

Spoiler:
Aaaaaaaaaa!

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
kinevon wrote:

It was interesting, but, due to low player dice rolls, the party had issues with both encounters. Because of that, and the lack of anyone who can do their own healing, they had issues with damage. Monk did some yo-yo-ing, and was only up, during the final part, due to Bear's Endurance from the Summoner.

Took all three charges from the wand to get it to work. Once they finally managed to hit it, they did a fair amount of damage. It was just bad rolls to hit that caused the issues.

Do you mean that they burned charges from the wand trying to cast the spell in the wand? Or that they had to use multiple castings from the wand to make something else work?

Spoiler:
The Sunmoner has a wand of Dispel Magic, with three charges.

He used it in the last battle, trying to dispel the Fly spell that the daemon was under. Due to low rolls, the Dispel only worked on the last, third, charge to dispel that Fly spell.

Didn't help that the wand is, of course, CL5, while the daemon's fly was cast at CL 8, IIRC. Makes the DC 19, with only a roll of d20+5 to get there.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

So someone, somewhere, at sometime will be running some con online.....

Thats a different issue to deal with.

What I have never had a remotely satisfactory answer to is why Dming three games at a con, even an online one, reaps greater rewards or is somehow better at building the community than dming 3, 6, or even 50 game days.

Yep, and they usually even announce it on the Online Play part of the PFS boards here.

APCon Online

June 26-28, 2015
Open call for GMs & players.

Check the post linked above for full information.

Edit: And it looks, given the ID of the event I just submitted, that they have plenty of slots available for GMs to volunteer to help with.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
trollbill wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
Andrew Roberts wrote:
I want more short races! There are already so few of them that it would be nice to have more. :)

So you're saying that they're in short supply?

*dodges tomatoes*

Don't be so small minded.
I have little patience for all these puns.

All these people are so short tempered. Makes me mad, sad, and vertically challenged.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
What Kinevon is proposing is a different issue entirely, and is not legal under any rule set.

Could you explain what I am proposing, other than building my GM credit blob at the appropriate level, possibly with no time to spend working it up level-by level at the table, and what is illegal?

And there are two threads going, and the answers in each of them seem to be contradictory:

[When is a GM credited character considered "newly created"?

Magabeus wrote:
Guide to PFSoP page 38, Game Master Rewards on applying credit wrote:
A GM may apply credit for running a scenario, module, or Adventure Path in any of the same ways a player can, and must follow the same rules as a player when applying credit to a character. When you choose to take a Chronicle sheet for GM credit, you must decide which of your characters receives the Chronicle sheet when you fill out the tracking sheet for that table. You must apply Chronicle sheets in the order they are received. The only exception is when you hold a highertier Chronicle for a lower-tier character. In either case, you do not need to build the character until you actually play it.
To me this implies that you are able to apply the racial boon to any character with only GM credit, since the character gets build just before actually being played, which seems to fit the "newly-created" requirement

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:

He means the PFS crafting exemption.

I believe it is in either the FAQ or the additional resources

Looked more like asking for the proof on the Throw Anything class ability, but the crafting is in the PFS FAQ at How can alchemists craft in Pathfinder Society Organized Play?

Quote:
Alchemists can use the Craft (alchemy) skill to produce items with their Alchemy ability. Follow the Craft rules on pages 91–93 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook as well as in the alchemist’s Alchemy ability description. Any item created must be properly noted on that scenario’s Chronicle sheet. Under "Items Bought", note the amount of gold spent and the item created. Alchemists are assumed, for Pathfinder Society Organized Play, to carry the necessary items and tools with them to use available resources to create alchemical items. If they have a base of operations from which to do so, they may use an alchemy lab to gain the +2 bonus on their Craft (alchemy) check. Alchemists may never sell any of their created items nor may they trade them to another PC. However, they may allow other PCs to borrow or use items they’ve created (so long as the alchemist class ability being used allows them to do so).

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quadstriker wrote:
I'm planning on going with the Pig's Paunch ownership decided to change the name back to The Wounded Wisp to appeal to nostalgia until we hear otherwise (and I'm not holding my breath).

Actually, no one in the Pathfinder Society, besides Kreighton Shane, who navigates with his eyes closed, anyhow, could find the place under the new name. The owners had to rename it to bring back all the business they lost....

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, printed the portion of the map that is used in the quest. Cut off the extra white paper. Taped the pieces together to make the map, after using colored markers for the three pools. Usable, the colors for the pools showed better than I had hoped.

Only got to run it once, and had to grab a random person to make a three player table. Still used all 4 pregens.

It was interesting, but, due to low player dice rolls, the party had issues with both encounters. Because of that, and the lack of anyone who can do their own healing, they had issues with damage. Monk did some yo-yo-ing, and was only up, during the final part, due to Bear's Endurance from the Summoner.

Took all three charges from the wand to get it to work. Once they finally managed to hit it, they did a fair amount of damage. It was just bad rolls to hit that caused the issues.

They had fun, they gazed in wonder at the chronicle, and then got to plotting which PC they wanted to assign it to.

I am assuming, since it is a 4-6, that it is a one chronicle each for playing & GMing it.

While the potions were helpful, it was a close-run thing, so more healing options might have been helpful. Maybe one of the meditation rooms offering a small amount of healing for a worshiper praying there.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rerednaw wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

Ok, so in your case Core=CRB+APG+other main books(since archetypes are not CRB you can't be doing just that).

I am confused though. Most of the tools to make a good blaster are in CRB(fireball and ancillary caster feats)+APG(Dazing spell,human FCB)+UC(magical lineage)+ARG(Paragon surge, if you feel like embracing the cheese). You might be able to push it a bit further with a big pile of splats, but the above is sufficient to make a pretty decent blaster.

Seeker sorcerer is out unless you can persuade your GM to allow PFS stuff.

I think you misunderstand. The other players got to use non-Core. I do not...the Core ruling came down after the original players. The GM going forward will allow very limited non-Core stuff, but my take is he wants flavor, not optimization.

Course if the party runs into Slumber witches I'm going to pout. :)

GM, here, and there seems to be a few confusions and misconceptions in here. ;)

Actually, anything that is not from the CRB, the Web Traits document, or the RotRL AE Player's Guide traits, requires GM approval. This was true, or supposed to be true, for all the PCs in the game. The reason the other player who was going to play a rogue as his replacement PC, is that he had misunderstood or missed my email with the above limitation. He didn't want to play in such a limited-source campaign, wanting an "All Paizo is legal, third party stuff on approval" game instead.

I also requested a PC-only game, no cohorts, animal companions, familiars, etc. RotRL is built for 4 15 point PCs, and maybe an AC or familiar. With 5 20 point PCs, you are already ahead of the game. The Core requirement is also based on the AP being originally written with only Core available.

Unchained Rogue is approved because I am working on my PFS Rogue, and seeing if Unchained works for him, so I have already looked it over. The other Unchained classes are on my reading list, just not sure when I will get the time. I probably need to update my 3rd level PFS Summoner to Unchained, just to make sure that the Eidolon is built legally. I have already screwed that one up as APG at least once already.

The group made a decision to try and power through all of Thistletop without rest. They managed the top level, then headed down. Unfortunately, they were low on consumable resources, managed to miss their AoOs on an enemy whose tactics said to run away at a certain point, and the path he was forced to take, due to PC placement, caused another encounter, one of the harder ones, to activate. That encounter, despite all the players could do, beat them up pretty badly. Didn't help that bad dice rolls caused things like the Wizard failing a Will save and running away in fear, and bad attack and/or damage rolls against an enemy with some DR.

So, currently, the Wizard from the original party is dead, the Urban Ranger, the Paladin and the Druid are imprisoned without any resources. Heck, until the Cleric channeled, most of them were unconscious. So, at present, and this is what brought on my comment on the Rogue, was that they had no way to get the first party free. I thought it was amusing, but that is probably just me.

So, at present, the active party is the original cleric, a fighter, a ranger, and a wizard. In my experience with these players, other than young M being a bit... bossy, they work fairly well together, it just doesn't help when their dice go cold, and mine get hot.

There is a non-Core request thread on our Roll20 site, which I look at and try to answer. Sometimes, it takes me a while. Sometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no. I need to go through, and tabulate all the answers into the first post in that thread, just for ease of lookup. I use the thread, so I don't forget what I have approved, later.

So, play what you want. I am sure things will work out. It won't be long before death becomes just a bump in the road, unless you want to try a different PC.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't open:
2-21 The Dalsine Affair.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Deacon The Diplomat wrote:
I accidentally started calling my PC Commander instead of title Captain from Andoran. Sounds cooler so I just stuck with it. You can call your pc literally whatever you want so long as it doesn't affect things mechanically or its offensive to others.

Heh. I have one PC who has the title Captain multiple ways.

Ship captain, has the ship vanity
Venture captain, played through Eyes of the Ten
Eagle Knight Captain, from the Andoran vanities

Captain (cubed?) Kinevon, 15th level (right this moment) Fighter (Polearm Master)

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@UndeadMitch: I have played MtG regularly, in the past. Dropped it, when money became an issue, then started back up for a short while when my roommate expressed an interest.

The odds of your holo/rare cards actually having value, in my past experience, is fairly low. The odds of you wanting to sell them, as mentioned by another poster, is even lower if you actively play.

My comparison seems to have not been clear enough.

I was comparing the cost of individual packs to individual books, and pointing out that buying a $4 pack is a lot less intimidating then buying a $50 book.

Now, I didn't feel I needed to point out that the dedicated Magic player is likely buying a case, rather than a single pack, at $90 or more a pop, but that the mental image behind it is still the $4 (or less with bulk "savings") per pack.

Buying single cards moves into an even different area, which lowers, other than those rare & expensive cards, the entry cost for MtG, whereas the entry fee, in people's eyes, for Pathfinder is the $50 Core Rulebook.

And then you get the issue of the apparent cost of "add-ons" like Hero Lab, which is $20 for a 2-license basic copy, but ramps up as you add access to the various additional Pathfinder books.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Arcwin wrote:

I've read in the Guide to Organized Play about how to handle potential 7-player table situations or 3-player tables, but I've also seen something else a few times and wondered about it.

What I've seen is GMs who say "I won't run a 6 player table" or "I won't run for more than 4 people" etc. For one's own home game or whatever naturally its fine, but I was wondering if this is allowed for a PFS game?

If you want to be known as a Diva, or various other uncomplimentary names, and you're sponsoring the event yourself, providing the space, etc., sure.

The folks who are sponsoring your table and providing the space, however may have something to say on this. A Judge who pulls this at a Game Store's game day isn't doing the hosting store any favors and may well cause them to lose a customer.

If I'm recruiting Judges for a convention though, Judges with that kind of attitude, are ones I recruit only as a last resort. And quite frankly If I'm marshalling, I will tell them straight out, that I won't turn away players to accommodate a Diva attitude.

You are entitled to your opinion, however uninformed it may be.

However, as a favor to the rest of the world, I would request that you take a 10 count, and think about what you are saying, and how you are saying it, before you post.

If you are unwilling to accommodate your GMs' legitimate requests, or try to work with them on them, you won't have GMs. If you insist on insulting anyone who has a different opinion on how to provide a good game, you will find that you are stuck on your own, trying to GM multiple tables, because your attitude drives your potential GMs away.

For me, I try not to run 7 player tables, because they often lead to non-fun situations. Either someone doesn't get much face time, or some of the people get bored and stop paying attention, or, and it has happened in my experience, no one is helping out the new guy. The GM because they are busy trying to keep track of 7 PCs, who knows how many familiars, ACs, mounts, etc. And, of course, their own NPCs, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Last time I ran a 7 player table, one of the PCs got killed during an encounter, partly because no one was able to do more than tell him that casting Sleep was a less than optimal idea, especially not where he had positioned himself, and then his unconscious body got into an AoE that I could not figure out a way to get him out of.

Spoiler:
Wizard moved into the baddies' room, started casting Sleep. One of the bad guys made his Spellcraft check, directed the melee minion to go after the Wizard. Wizard hit, knocked unconscious. Minion suffered enough damage to incapacitate him, which also caused said minion to explode. No way to get the minion far enough away form the downed Wizard to get him out of the explosion radius. High damage roll, failed Reflex save, damage went beyond negative Con. Low level, so no access to Breath of Life. Low level so insufficient PP to get a Raise Dead.

I had tried to warn him about the downsides to his attempt to cast Sleep, but had to continue running the game.

Result: Dead wizard, time for a new PC. Someday. Newish player (PC had 2 XP), have only seen him in passing playing board games, since.

So, I am allergic to running 7 player tables, because, overall, I am not going ot do as good a job of it, leading to a less enjoyable experience for both the players and the GM. What I call a lose-lose situation.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avatar-1 wrote:

Back in the day there was a section in the PFS guide called "Play play play" which was basically saying do anything you can to get a table running, but it was always a bit fuzzier on just far how you could go to do that.

The current version of the guide just says minimum 3 players with 1 pregen, so I don't think that still applies.

Does that phrase still do a Summon Dragnmoon?

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelly Youngblood wrote:

Give your character a personality, preferably one that is not a stereotype of your race and class. That said, don't overdo it and hog the spotlight or draw out the game.

And yes, please pay attention during the mission briefing. Ask questions even if it seems clear. Take notes!

FTFY

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Baker wrote:
I agree with Eric on this one. There was no error made. Regardless of the social aspect, where would you draw the line? The Bard with the cure light potions as mentioned above? Perhaps the barbarian example provided, if he had already played a game?

I disagree, but I think it is unfair to penalize someone because someone gave them bad advice.

On the computer thing, it is a totally different paradigm. Now, if you are a computer technician, and bought the PC when you were perfectly capable of putting the parts together, and knew it, that is your own lookout. But if you weren't, it is a totally different thing.

He didn't have the option offered to him. He was never properly informed of his options to begin with. How is penalizing him for someone else's misinformation fair?

"Hi! You paid X amount for this item,. but the person selling it to you, despite presenting you with what appeared to be legal papers, stole it. I am going to arrest you now for possession of stolen goods."

Remember to temper justice with mercy and compassion.

Grand Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Arcwin: The rule, as cited in a similar thread a while back, was that, if the GM or Organizer announces a game for X number of people, whether that is 4, 5, 6 or 7, they have the right to only seat X number of people at their table.

So, what I have seen, frequently, is that some GMs will, for Season 0-3 and modules and AP segments, post a hard limit of either 4 or 5 players. Mainly because these games are designed to handle 4 PCs, not 6.

The same GMs will, frequently, bump the limit up to 6 for Season 4 and later scenarios, but that is because those games are designed to handle 6 PCs.

Oftentimes, in my experience, too many players at a table can cause unintentional issues, whether it is someone never getting to act in any combat, or someone not getting heard over the general noise level. And those can affect even online or home games, where the GM and players are the general noise level.

As a GM, I prefer not to GM 7 player tables, it tends to do bad things to everyone's' fun, including mine. As a player, I have been known to give up my seat if we wind up with a 7 player table.

BTW, to the VOs: I GM PFS, not as a representative of Paizo, but because the PFS scenarios are usually short, quick, inexpensive, and cover the problems I have with world-building; amd, also, because there was, when I started doing it, very little other PFS available, other than the now-moribund monthly Game Days and defunct annual gaming convention.

In other words, if I didn't do it, no one was. Our original VC jumped on the site and day I was doing, and helped pump up attendance, and find some alternate GMs. When he stopped being VC, things slowed down for my game day at the FLGS again.

New VC, I think he bit off more than he could chew. Assigned multiple VLs, not sure if any of them were supposed to coordinate with the shop I GM at. Nothing very visible from him.

Third VC, he did more, while he could. Tried to get PFS going at some of the other local conventions, not much local response. Life came up and bit him.

Our current VC, our fourth, is seeing if running PFS online is the solution to get PFS going locally. That is fairly recent, not sure how it is working out. At the first game, one of the other players brought in a friend from another location to make it a 4 player table...

So, Saturdays is, usually, me as GM, although I have been tryign to get others to run, as well. Only one taker, so far. Sundays is a different organizer/primary GM, but his job doesn't leave him able to always run on Sundays. My job moved me away from being able to show up for his games, since I have to be at work before his game session ends, usually.

I am going to be trying to run Bonekeep 1 on the 2nd of May, locally, no idea how well that is going to go oevr. Not even sure how many people have PCs in the correct level range, as the turnover sometimes seems to leave us in perpetual Confirmation/Wounded Wisp mode.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Professor Herp wrote:
People can have high initiatives and use that advantage responsibly.
With great initiative comes great responsibility.

When the arcane caster announces "Hey guys, do you mind holding off long enough for me to get an AOE on the bad guys?" and then the initiative monkey rushes into combat it's a violation of the "Don't Be a Jerk" rule to invoke the "No PvP" rule.

As a GM, in situations like that I'm fine with telling the caster's player the initiative monkey's player has just given tacit approval to be within said AoE by moving right into the area.

Is that "high initiative" player still being a jerk if his init was a 7, the enemies go on 5, and the caster's initiative was a 2?

Meh. This whole conversation, in many ways, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I spent years in a gaming group that was always trying to "improve" my RP skills, or get me to RP more.

Where is "enough"? It is going to be a different amount for different people, and, honestly, trying to force too much RP on someone is also a jerk move.

To be honest, one of the problems my area has is that we don't have enough active GMs, so we wind up with a GM who is not a high-end, or even a medium range, RPer as one of the main GMs. That's me, by the way. I am not very much into RP. The RP I did the other day for my Core halfling Rogue was farther than I normally go with my RP. ::shrug:: YMMV.

I do what I can, but I am much more Brian than Sara....

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Four Dollar Dungeons wrote:
Four Dollar Dungeons wrote:

If you want to wait about 4 months for the next adventure I'm writing, currently called Isle of Gods, this is set on an island that looks very much like Lindisfarne (which is not far from where I live, funnily enough) ...

Richard

And here it is:

Holy Island

Richard

Linkified.

Grand Lodge ****

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

You know, I don't think anybody's going to demonize you for not liking people having tons of rerolls. I sympathize; it is kind of a bummer because they make it that much more difficult to create suspenseful situations.

But the real problem is when you try to twist rules to legitimize your dislike and enforce it.

You may not realize it, but the person at the end of the table who has invested (financially or otherwise) in collecting various means of rerolling out of a bad situation now has to be told that they can't do that because you happen to not like it.

Sounds great for a homebrew where you can very easily establish these constraints and work with your players. In PFS it just creates unnecessary potential for sour situations. Particularly at conventions where you don't know many of the people.

I'm trying not to be sour about this myself, but I'm finding it difficult to not be, because it seems like a trend with many people on the forums. I've said it before: it is fine (and inevitable) to have table variation because of legitimate rules interpretations. It is not ok to introduce table variation by twisting the rules to your whims.

EDIT: Changed wording, the previous phrasing sounded waaaay too personal. Sorry.

How is interpreting the word "must" as must, twisting things?

Because you are taking it out of context. The context is that you must take the reroll instead of the original roll, not that you must not use another way to take a reroll.

Your conclusion also fails if you use a reroll ability on something that you have to roll multiple dice on to begin with, since you would reroll all those dice, and take the one of the rerolled dice that matches the limitation of the original roll multiple dice ability.

Or are we going to go back to whether a True Strike spell active on your original attack, which was a crit threat, would also apply to the critical confirmation roll?

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Soluzar wrote:

Apparently everyone responding doesn't seem to get the idea. There are no limitations listed. It says "any number of spells." But everyone here wants to interpret it in the most punitive way possible. This boon was written long before Core was considered. To me it seems like people wanting to keep any and every non-Core option out of the game no matter what (just look at Kevin Willis' post). The idea behind Core is earned access, people seem to be forgetting that.

I just asked the question to test the feasibility but I guess it doesn't matter. I already scribed the spells anyway (all three of them...so game breaking). I will hold to that definition until someone higher up says otherwise.

So, tell me, would you also rule that this boon gives you the right to scribe blood transcription in Standard PFS?

So, for the boon, since it does not list any specific resources, or specific spells, it only, only gives access to the spell sources, and spells, that are legal for the OP campaign it is used in.

For Core, that gives access to spells, other than spells listed as not available, from the Core Rulebook, the Web Traits Enhancement, the language blog post, and the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. And, since of those books, only the CRB has spells in it, it only gives access to scribe spells from the Core Rulebook.

Note that the boon only gives free access to spells you can scribe, it does not open access to any spells you could not otherwise scribe. The boon only waives the access cost to the spell, not whether the spell is normally legal or not.

So, if your PC has used this boon to scribed, say, Snowball, Create Pit and some other spell from outside Core, with only this boon as a source, that PC has removed itself from the Core Campaign.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Paz wrote:
The Accursed Halls, the first level of Thornkeep, is also tier 1-2 and gives 3 XP & 4 Prestige.
And it takes less time, since it is a TPK unless the GM rolls poorly.

Seriously? I don't know about you, but I don't softball it, have run it multiple times, and only had a TPK once, against the freaking vegetables. And I may have been running them wrong, how they work has been debated in the Rules forum.

The <redacted> can be a pain, but most parties, even Core, will have some stuff that will work against it.

The other <redacted> doesn't hit very well. In 6+ runs, I have only seen it hit once, and that was against a 2nd level PC, so ugly but not instantly fatal. Really, it hits less than half the time against an AC of 15 or higher. And most front liners are going to have higher ACs than that.

Ledford is deadlier.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Modules & AP segments that give 3 XP for tier 1-2 or 1-3:

1-2 Crypt of the Everflame
1-2 Murder's Mark
1-2 The Godsmouth Heresy
1-3 Dragon's Demand, Part 1
1-2 Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls
1-2 Emerald Spire: The Tower Ruins
1-3 Emerald Spire: The Cellars
1-2 Reign of Winter: The Snows of Summer
1-2 The Mummy's Mask: The Half-Dead City

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Because it's substantially different enough that it's not better for everyone who built for it?

Yes, the ability is different than before. That's obvious.

But the "build" for it, is the same.

Before, it required a ranged attack roll(s).

It still does, now.

So, if you took feats and abilities to augment your ranged attacks, like Precise Shot, those are still equally of use.

If you didn't, then you're also in the same boat.

I fail to see how people can ask for a rebuild. Especially when what they got, is better.

Well, let's see:

6th level.
Before: 6 shots at 1d8+Cha Mod, going against DR, Fort save for half on each shot
Now: Single shot, 4d6+Cha Mod, going against ER, no save.

All sorts of differences, right there. Any feats or other build points used to improve the DC of the Fort save, or to overcome or bypass the DR? No longer apply.
Anything that might help the sonic part overcome ER? Not there, yet.

Sorry, plenty of differences, not all of them make it better. May not make it worse, but definitely makes it different.

Sure, some of the things that can work with one version will work with the other, but not everything, by far.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, they finally came through with the Sound Striker FAQ on how the Weird Words ability works, and it is more of an errata than an FAQ.

Bard: The sound striker’s weird words ability is confusing. Does it work more than once on the same target? And does it require 30 rolls to adjudicate?
Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.

posted Fri, Mar 13, 2015

So, is this worth any sort of PC rebuild for free option? It doesn't change a feat, class-dependent stat, or weapon proficiency, but it does have a major change on how one of the archetype-defining features works.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TetsujinOni wrote:
kinevon wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The Fox wrote:

1. Yes, that is fine.

2. This is also fine.

You may want to print out the temporary cards that are available on your event organizer page when you set up the event. You can give these out to all of your players along with chronicle sheets, and log the event with all of those temporary ID numbers. That way, if the uninterested players later change their minds, there is nothing more you need to do.

3. The -# will be the character number they are applying the credit toward. If they are new, then this will be -1. If they are not new, they have the opportunity to apply the credit to whichever character they want.

2 is most certainly NOT Fine because you need a minimum of three registered players to report a table.

The first thing I tell ALL newbies is that their night's homework is to download and READ the Campaign Guide and Additional Resources documents. The bulk of the answers you need are there.

2 is fine, you would need three players to run a PFS table. PFS sanctioned modules or APs in campaign mode do not have any requirements, other than maintenance of the storyline, not even that it be run using the Pathfinder Role-Playing Game rules.

And, just as an FYI, there are several PFS events where a GM alone may be all that is reported:
Overseer GM for any of the multi-table Specials
GMing Silverhex Chronicles
GMing the Beginner Box Bash, IIRC. I think it also covers any of the Beginner Box PFS-sanctioned intro pieces.

Free RPG Day 20111 I ran We Be Goblins.

No player wanted a PFS #. I wanted a chronicle. GM and no players reported. 100% legit.

I have seen the future, and it is We Be Goblins! 20,111? ;)

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FranKc wrote:
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
And once this season, you can change your faction for free.

This only applies to characters who have been played before the start of season six. It's because of the changes in some factions.

And yes, I believe that a paladin in Dark Archives is viable. It is commonly known fact that Zarta Dralneen is evil and thus needs to be kept under keen observation.

I understand that the Calistrians keep her under close observation. Sometimes, you just need some... inspiration. ;)

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

Those remarks were intended to bait, flame, and discredit the target on a personal level. You view them differently, that is your prerogative. I question the integrity of anyone who says dye arrow and Explosive Missile is not an exploit.

One of the lead designers of Pathfinder disagrees that it is clear. Per the PFS guide, I am empowered to adjudicate things that are not clear. You run your table how you see fit.

Mine was not an attack on you, if you so interpreted it, I apologize. My comment, as mentioned, was an attempt to make sure you understand that rules in PFS are run as written, not as the GM prefers. That second is what happens in home games, not PFS games.

As to your comments that it is an exploit, maybe. Would a ranged touch attack that does other kinds of damage, instead of hit point damage, still deliver the EM attack?

Actually, the one you should worry about, and probably needs an answer, is EM with a splintershot arrow. Does the EM affect the area covered by the splinter affect of the arrow, or just the initial target? Note that since the splintershot arrow now has to hit, and does normal damage first, before the area effect is triggered, does the EM "rider" affect the target of the arrow, or tthe area affected by the splinters?

Or is the question more, "Is turning someone blue/yellow/red actually damaging to them?" I know that there are a couple of scenarios where if someone gets affected by a trap, and turned blue, it is noted down by the NPCs...

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is why the question, in part, revolves around whether the armor was just broken, or actually destryoed.

Broken is just hit point damage, and, while a full suit of plate armor, for example, might need a 50th level caster to repair as a unit. It isn't a unit, it is made of multiple pieces of armor that can be dealt with separately. Believe me, if it were a single piece, it would be more of a tank than something anyone could actually be mobile in. Then again, it would be a lot faster to don, too.

1 to 50 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.