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

kinevon's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 4,707 posts (5,875 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 37 Pathfinder Society characters.

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Oh dear. Nuke the island, it's time to start over. ;)

I thought they tried that when Dragnmoon got his fifth star.


Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe the First wrote:
Phoenyx Aurelian wrote:
On another note, beware the #1 downside to being a debuffer; your GMs will eventually run after you howling demonic warcries and brandishing the binder containing the scenario which they spent a week prepping and which you have now managed to break so thoroughly there is no longer a playbook.
Joe, a devout Cleric of Desna takes it as a point of pride, that when a fellow pathfinder gets grappled, their next action is to delay until after Joe.

Ummm, why delay? Liberating Command is an immediate action spell...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being hit ends a sleep type effect, NOT color spray.

Sleep, the spell, specifically calls out that someone can use a standard action can wake someone up, or that damage taken ends the effect. Color spray, on the other hand, does not.

and, in addition, whether asleep or unconscious form being low level and hit by color spray, the person is a valid target for a special attack called a coupe de gras, which is an automatic crit, and, if the target survives the damage, also requires a Fortitude save or die, with the DC of the save being 10 plus the damage done.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do you know the spells are balanced for the Psychic's level, a whole new concept, rather than the long existing Arcane/Divine caster's level, a set of classes that has existed for something over 20 years?

Secondly, look at the Sorcerer. As they always get spell levels after the Wizard, they always have to make caster level checks for spells of higher level. It may be a null check, but they have to make a check.
3rd level Sorcerers have to make checks for Level 2 spells, 5th level Sorcerers for 3rd level spells, etc.

Part of your problem is that you have not been making a reasoned request, but making an emotional outburst, and it is generating a negative response because it is emotional, rather than reasoned. It sounds like crying, rather than a rational point of discussion.

Occult Adventures introduced a whole new set of spells and spell definitions, along with a 9 level caster class for these spells.

Due to older language in the Guide, the spells are priced oddly, at best, as the 9 level caster is not included in the list of available providers, and they probably should be.
Especially as, without them added in, you will wind up with Occult/Psychic spells being priced off of the 4 or 6 level caster charts, rather than the 9 level caster charts.

In order to clarify the situation, and bring it into alignment with previous rules for the OP campaign, it is requested that the 9 level Psychic caster class be added as the primary source for Psychic spells, and as an option, when a spell is on multiple 9 level caster lists, to be the source if lower for a shared spell.
This is in line with previous expectations, and should leave no more variation, overall, than things like the Poison spell being on multiple 9 level caster lists at different levels.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
And by picking a race for an FCB that is significantly better than any other FCB out there, and makes that character significantly better at doing something by 50% than maybe even the primary class that has that ability, then something is askew. Apparently the design team agrees with me.

It is statements like this, which is both false and misleading, by people who should know better, that makes me sad that they are in positions of pseudo-authority.

For an example, not only did Aasimar get the +1/? to their Oracle level for the purposes of determining the effect of one revelation, but it was also an FCB for Elves, and therefore, Half-Elves, as well.

So, since three races have it, it no longer qualifies as " picking a race for an FCB that is significantly better than any other FCB out there".

And that completely ignores the effects of other FCBs that were, and are, still better than this very limited benefit.

An Elf Oracle could use a single revelation, for every two levels of FCB spent, as though he were one level higher. For the Life Oracle's channeling, as an example, that was a benefit that kicked in for a visible effect only for one level out of two.

A Human Sorcerer, on the other hand, can get an extra spell known every level. That is something that takes effect right from the get-go, and has additional effect every level, not every other level.

Which one is stronger? Which one hasn't been changed, even though it was already stronger to begin with?

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Expect some table variation at higher levels as to whether it can be affected by Magic Weapon or Greater Magic Weapon, and it is unlikely to be enchantable normally.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
And before anyone asks, it's *extremely* unlikely they will revise all the Chronicles to add all the non-Core-but-always-available items in scenarios to the Chronicles.

Might not hurt to request a "Core Scenario Access Document", something like the Secondary Success Conditions document, for older scenarios, to let the GM know what to write into the chronicle for a Core game for additional access....

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:
Yuri Sarreth wrote:
Oh and I shall now point out after having reread the bloodrager descriptions that it clearly states the Bloodrager can concentrate to cast spells from the bloodrager list.. Just to further mess with this debate.. lol

And that is an explicit exception.

As to the rest, A -4 penalty to hit is something. What is it? Until that is dealt with I will say it is at least the character concentrating on doing something. You can thank BBT's bullying for that.

No, we can thank your weird iinterpretations of what the game rules say, as you are not doing any citations for doing lethal with a non-lethal weapon, or non-lethal with a lethal weapon, as requiring anything approaching concentration.

The character cited has a feat to allow them to do non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon as a choice, not a concentration.

Would you require a Barbarian or Bloodrager with the Whip Mastery feat to only be able to do nonlethal with a whip when raging, even though the feat allows them, to choose which kind of damage to do?

How about someone with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, nonlethal only if they are under the effects of a Rage spell?

How about the Weapon Versatility feat? Does it take concentration to alter the type of damage your weapon does, per the feat?

How about any of the many weapons which can, without a feat, just on the weapon itself, do different types of damage? Dagger, as an example, can be used to do either slashing or piercing damage, at the user's choice. Does that require concentration? And, if it does, which damage type do you make it default to?

Please, be careful of the law of unintended consequences, as it can come up behind you and bite you.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Note: In my (limited) experience, if you use HeroLab or several of the other alternatives, they frequently offer an option to print out just a statblock, which looks very similar to the statblocks for monsters in the various Bestiaries.

Any experienced GM probably will have little problem reading that.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PFS Online:

There are several options available in this general ballpark

1) Play by Post (PbP): This is a fairly slow but intense option, as you are basically using a dedicated forum thread to run/play your game. These usually take days or weeks to play out, and tend toward more RP than "live" games, as the time limits are vastly different.

2) Virtual Table Top (VTT): Due to improvements in computers and Internet service, these games usually use a set of programs to simulate the tabletop with maps on it, dice rolls, and a voice chat/conference call to allow regular discussion.

These typically run in about the same time frame as a face-to-face game these days, due to a mix f improved technologies, and the ability to prebuild commonly used dice rolls using macros. James Wygle, one of the VOs who has started playing online more often, has a short overview of some of the things that Roll20, one of the commonly used VTTs, can help to automate play.

For online play like this, it is recommended that you have a headset/microphone, especially in a public location, but as long as you can mute your input, you can get by without.

One advantage, in my opinion, of any of the online play options is that you get to play with people allover the world. I am running the Rise of the Runelords AP online, and my players include a young lady from Singapore, while I live in Las Vegas, Nevada.

I have also played or run games with people from almost all other parts of the world. That has also included playing and GMing several of the multi-table specials online.

For one of the more active groups for online PFS games: Pathfinder Society Online Collective.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
The Fox wrote:
To paraphrase Big Norse Wolf from another thread, some characters are built with the precision of a finely tuned watch. One small change to one cog and the whole thing is thrown off.
I suppose, but in this case the cog was replaced by a similar cog with only a slightly-reduced effect. It's still a watch, it still keeps excellent time, it has just lost... well, it has lost its ability to be better than every other watch out there. I think this should be an easier mechanical change to still enjoy playing than some other ones we've seen.

Similar cog? Yes.

Only a slightly-reduced effect? I gotta seriously disagree.

Original cog: +1/2 or +3/6 revelation per level
Replacement cog: +1/6 revelation per level.

That is a reduction by 66%, which qualifies as a loss of the majority of the cog. Try doing that on a gear on your bicycle or car, and let me know if it still works.

TMI, probably:
I have a PC who has been affected by this change, and he loses at least one die from his Channel form it, and he is, in general, an irreplaceable PC, as he is my Standard Campaign PC with a unique boon. One of the reasons I played him through the module which gave that boon is because he had the ability to help the party, with support abilities, even while playing cautiously in Slow mode.

I have used up all my GM Star replays. Don't have access to the GM Star recharge boon. Am not likely to ever reach that 5th star. So, now, I have to see what all is affected on him, including all the feats spent on the ability which is no longer as good, by a 66% reduction of bonus, as it was.

Previously, at 5th level, he was channeling as a 7th level Cleric. Now, he will be channeling with a 2/7th reduction in that ability. When he, eventually, levels to 6th level, he will, once again, be channeling as a 7th level Cleric, when he was on-track to Channel as a 9th level Cleric at that time.

Note that this hurts even worse if you were planning or building toward using it on a revelation that can't be taken at first level, since the other FAQ means that you couldn't take the FCB for it until you actually have it. If it doesn't become available until 6th level, you get the benefit for only one level in normal PFS play. If it requires higher than 6th, you can only gain any actual benefit from it if you are playing at Seeker levels.

Oh, and just to give a small numeric representation of how the 1/6th version effects the Channel Energy revelation:
1 - N/E (1/6)
2 - N/E (2/6)
3 - N/E (3/6)
4 - N/E (4/6)
5 - N/E (5/6)
6 - +1 level (+1d6 for Channel, +6/6)
7 - +1 level is N/E (+1 level does nothing, +7/6)
8 - +1 level (+1d6 Channel, +8/6)
9 - +1 level is N/E (+1 level does nothing, +9/6)
10 - +1 level (+1d6 Channel, +10/6)
11 - +1 level is N/E (+1 level does nothing, +11/6)
12 - +2 level (+1d6 Channel, +12/6)
Note that even when you reach 6/6, the effect is intermittent, since the Channel is affected only by odd numbers of levels. It is only after 12 levels of the FCB that you are guaranteed for it to have an effect every level thereafter, and even then, the effect will never be more than guaranteeing one extra d6 of Channel every level. To me that counts as 8 dead levels for the FCB.

For the old version, at 1/2, it would be N/E at 1st level, starts the bounce at 2nd level, N/E again at 3rd level, and at 4th would become a guaranteed extra die. Even that gives two "dead" levels for the FCB.

So, the new version gives 4 times as many dead levels as the old one for the Channel Energy revelation. That is a change from 16% of your PFS career, to 66% of your PFS career.

So, I'll ask you, is that something that counts as only "slightly reduced"?

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that now, despite what the scenarios say, XP is awarded for each scenario, 2 for part 1, 1 for each other part.

Liberty's Edge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Totes McScrotes wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Totes McScrotes wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Really? You think taking 3 levels of Rogue is going to make for a viable Magus, when you only have 11 effective levels to work with in PFS? How does having 2nd level spells at 7th level work?
Let me ask my Bloodrager, Paladin or Ranger.
You go ahead and ask your full BAB dippable classes...
Bloodrager couldn't hear me over the crappy saves. And all 3 lose class abilities when you dip, way harder than anyone but the Bladebound or Kensai.
Really, that's your argument? Players dip paladin all the time for charisma to saves or ranger for combat styles. Bloodragers get dipped for rage and arcane abilities. What do people dip magus for. Oh right. Nothing.

I love me those blanket statements that are incorrect.

Fighter (Lore Warden) 8, Magus (Kensai) 4

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could contact the Australian group, and see if they can let you know what DB they us for their online tracker/search engine at

And try and talk them into letting you have a copy of it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think we need a picture of the succubus wearing a Robe of the Faerie Queen. Such lusciousness in a nearly invisible robe? Yes, please.

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.


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....


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....


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?

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.
Selena Halfblood wrote:

Fellow researchers, I have a question to submit!

Suppose that you are grappling with an (half-)succubus, with large amounts of rolling around, changes on who's dominant in the grapple, and sweating bodies. We can all agree that taking a 10 would be impossible, but why that is? Is it because the victim partner is in immediate Level Drain danger, or because he's distracted by the succubus ample CHA modifier?

I would test that myself, but I've been going only against strange stuff lately. Ghosts and Icy skeletons-Skeletons! What am I supposed to fondle there?

Dem bones, dem bones, them slick, slick bones!

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?

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.

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.

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.