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. 4,409 posts (5,575 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 36 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Balderdash. Something you have a 50 50 chance of failing at is NOT trivial.
False conclusion. Based on a faulty assumption. Where do you come up with failing 50% of the time?

Stop that. You can't call it a false conclusion if you don't know how I'm getting it.

You can take 10 if you have a +10 modifier and need a 20. That is something that you would fail half the time. That is NOT a trivial(easy) task.

Math failure alert:

+10 and needing a 20 is NOT a 50% failure rate on a roll.

+9 and needing a 20, to +10 and needing a 21 would both be a 50% failure rate.

And, contrariwise: If you have a 50% or better chance of success, how is the task NOT trivial?

"On a normal day, I can control my car easily, even though I only have a +1 Driver skill. If the weather is bad, or there are a bunch of maniacs out there, I am distracted trying to avoid them, so I have a harder time controlling my vehicle."

Grand Lodge ****

Tsriel wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Yes, but it not one that renders the PC unplayable, and is actually annotated on the chronicle itself.

Such a character would be rendered unplayable if the following conditions were met:

** spoiler omitted **

To be fair, we are talking about a 7-11 scenario. Seeing someone purposefully choose to remain that way seems a little strange. Not being able to afford the resources needed for the remedy seems unlikely, but it could happen. Of course, it wouldn't seem farfetched to have the table pool their efforts together to help another player out. At this tier, the remedy is easily affordable with several people pitching in.

Spoiler:
Sorry, I forgot about needing an atonement, mainly because, by this level, that amount of gold or PP is not much more than a minor bump in the road. Unless you need the major form, for a Paladin or Cleric, rather than the minor form for most anyone else.

For the other effect, no, it doesn't render a PC unplayable.

Grand Lodge

@Drogos:
They had Bruthazmus, who had escaped, but badly damaged, from the earlier encounter, he was originally with the goblin wives. They died, he ran.

Due to positioning, the door he had to run away through led to the temple, with the two Yeth Hounds. Due to a bad party decision earlier, which was also a contributing factor to Bruthazmus being able to escape, they were low on spells.

Due to real life, the party Cleric was not available, which also hurt.

So, Bruthazmus ran away, the Yeth Hounds came to investigate. One dead Yeth Hound, one dead Wizard, and three other PCs' unconscious later, we had a problem.

Next session, the new PCs came in, found out what happened, found the survivors, but couldn't get them out of the cells they were imprisoned in. That session was also where one of the players dropped form the game, due to clearing up a misunderstanding. He thought we were running all Paizo approved, 3PP needs approval, rather than Paizo CRB approved, all else needs approval. Meh.

Session after this is when Mouse came in to play.
The portcullis encounter was just bad luck, leading to Nualia being fulling spelled up.

In Nualia's room:
Bruthazmus, down to single digit hit points, IIRC
Surviving Yeth Hound form the temple, healed by Nualia's one Cure spell, ro about 20 hit points.
Nualia, rested, since the hound got healed the day before.
Her Yeth Hound, fully healthy.
And, looking at this, I forgot to include the healing on those two of a night's sleep. Consider them to have been under stress, so no healing.

So, Door opens, Mouse gets to go fast, drops Bruthazmus while he is flatfooted.
Hound howls, none of the PCs were the ones from the day before, saves all around. All but the Wizard succeed, Wizard starts to flee.
Cleric goes, chases the Wizard (Travel DOmain FTW), and casts Remove Fear on the Wizard, neutralizing this fear effect.
Other hound goes, also howling. All but the Wizard succeed at the Will save, Wizard fails despite the bonus from Remove Fear, again starts to flee.
Various movements occur, combat winds up in the room with the pillars, at the base of the stairs.
Nualia winds up in the corner near the stairs up, fear on Wizard has ended, freeing up the Cleric, as well, who had been keeping the Wizard from running too far away. Both Yeth Hounds are now down, leaving Nualia on her own.
Nualia keeps missing the halfling fighter in front of her, then the Dwarf moves up into the other open square by her, blocking her into the corner.
She channels, since that halfling is unhittable, and blocking the stairs out. High damage from the channel.
Various attempts to take her down, or sunder her unholy symbol don't quite succeed, so she channels again, trying to clear the way out.
At this point, they finally manage to finish her off, but too late for poor Mouse, who failed one save too many. The Cleric was barely rescued, as he went down to the channeling, as well. Fortunately, Core Rangers can use a Wand of CLW...

Present situation:
Mouse had freed the original party members, but their gear is partly missing, so they headed back to town.
At the end of the combat with Nualia, the Cleric was able to catch up to them, with Mouse's remains, and send them on back to look for someone else to assist the party, which will be Rerednaw's new PC.
Cleric came back, group is holed up in Nualia's room, recovering from that difficult combat....

And waiting for Mike's new PC.


Hope that explains why that encounter had a few extras there.

Grand Lodge

Qaianna wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

If I play raging PCs I either write two lines for my weapon, one raging one not raging or I have the complete first page of my char sheet twice once for raging, once for normal.

No reason for an unchained class. They wanted to do/try out some changes and included the different rage as one of it.

Writing example:
Weapon / to hit / damage
Weapon +PA / to hit / damage
weapon +PA +Rage / to hit / damage

The most meaningful nerf, and the one keeping me from really considering it is the fixed 1 minute fatigue.

As far as the fixed fatigue..out of curiosity, how often does the dropped rage fatigue factor into games in general? I once had to rage an empty round, but that was one where we knew there was another monster about to come out from another room. Have people had combats running that close together? (We're still low level, too.)

It is more for the once/Rage powers, really.

And, at higher levels, just like the Core Barbarian, you get the ability to Rage cycle, just without the extra temps.

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 ****

Yes, but it not one that renders the PC unplayable, and is actually annotated on the chronicle itself.

Grand Lodge ****

ElterAgo wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

...

I admit. I didn't understand it at first either. But one of the designers at the time, specifically Sean K Reynolds, changed my mind with a post that is linked way above.

It shows what the designers intent was. Which in something that was slightly ambiguous was very important to me in how I decided to interpret things from that point forward.

Almost everyone I have talked to agreed with the interpretation we have all been using.

Until this thread, I had never seen or even heard of this post from SKR. Even then, that thread doesn't really say that is what the rule means. It sounds more like he is saying "I do it this way because it seems to work better." Actually I'm fine with that. But if that was really what they wanted the rule to say, put it in the errata / faq / or multiple re-printings of the book.
Obviously a heck of a lot of us are going to continue reading it they way many of us already have.

A lot of these posts are sounding like we are obviously horrible, mean, vindictive GM's. There is apparently no reasonable way anyone could think take 10 isn't allowed for almost anything. Because obviously we all should magically know SKR suggests handling it like this.

So, according to your interpretation, if I am understanding it correctly, you can never take 10 while swimming? After all, you are in danger of drowning if you fail your Swim check.

Swim rules:
* You can't take 10 on a Swim check in stormy water, even if you aren't otherwise being threatened or distracted.

Grand Lodge ****

@BBT: The problem is that, for certain scenarios, what is on the Chronicle sheet can actually spoil the adventure.

Generic examples:
Friend of NPC Roguish:
You have assisted Roguish out of a bad situation, and, as a reward, Roguish will give you assistance three times. This assistance consists of the following abilities:
[][][] +10 Stealth check
[][][] +12 Disable Device check (can be used on magical traps)
[][][] Flanking for one round, you also get to apply 3d6 sneak attack damage with your attack, if it hits

[] Wand of Really Useful Spell, CL X+9, Y charges, Limit: 1

The first one tells you, without even looking at the rest of the scenario, that your PC wants to befriend Roguish, rather than attack them because they are a member of monster race Z.

The second one tells you that there is an item available in the scenario that does A', which is both useful for members of Class B', C', and D'; but that you are likely to have an enemy NPC trying to use said item against your party.

By the way, I have received chronicles with both types of rewards on them. Knowing about some of them can cause the PCs to act out of character.

more detailed commentary, might be spoilery:
So, say you are a member of a party sent to clean out a cave full of kobolds, but you also know that, on the chronicle, kobold Binky can be befriended.

When you run across the various groups of kobolds, do you also spend time trying to find Binky and befriend him, or just act as normal, and mow down kobolds? What about if you run across, say, an imprisoned kobold? Do you talk to him, or do you just kill him "because he is a kobold!"

Grand Lodge ****

GM Lamplighter wrote:

So you're saying that there is only danger after you make the roll, and so therefore there is no danger when you actually make the roll?

If this were how it worked in real life, no one would ever fall down the stairs.

Your skill modifier represents your training and skill, but the dice roll represents the "crap happens" part of the world that isn't explicitly modeled in the game.

Most people, when they fall down the stairs, are either: under extreme encumbrance, distracted, or are feeling threatened.

Here's a question for you.

Character X, Acrobatics of +9
10' pit, room to make a running jump.
Do you have him roll, even if he cannot fail it, even on a 1?

Character Y, Acrobatics of +5, Ring of Feather Falling
10' pit, room to make a running jump.
Do you have him make a roll, even though the ring would prevent him from being in danger of taking damage from the fall?

How about if he has Boots of the Cat, which reduces fall damage to the minimum possible?

Survivability:
Assuming a d6 class, with a 5 Con, so d6-3 per level, FCB to anything but hp, no Toughness or such.
1: 3 hp
2: 4 hp
3: 5 hp
4: 6 hp
5: 7 hp (stay out of Fireball formation!)
.
.
.
14: 16 hp (will survive the fall, if stabilized immediately)

That, however, is a worst case scenario, considering it means an Elf with Con dumped...

For a more "normal" caster, assuming d6 and a 10 Con, no FCB, no Toughness:
1: 6 hp
2: 10 hp
3: 14 hp (will survive the fall, has 3 rounds to stabilize)
3: 18 hp (will even be awake after the fall)

Grand Lodge ****

jtaylor73003:

The empirical evidence you request has been presented. You ignore it, or claim it is subjective. It is not. The Living Greyhawk Organized Campaign wound up broken at higher levels because of the magic item crafting feats, and that was with the campaign's built-in time limits for amount of crafting any specific PC could do, and still adventure.

In short, LG scenarios make Chalfon Dalsine look like a pussycat. Mainly because they had to, since the crafting was causing some PCs to be well past extremely overpowered. For those of us not abusing the crafting rules, LG became virtually unplayable.

As mentioned, the feat Scribe Scroll does not give a Wizard more direct power, all it does is reduce the cost of their scroll library. Between the higher average WbL of PFS PCs, and the boost to wealth given by being able to buy things with PP expenditure, there is nothing preventing that same Wizard from having the exact same library, for, likely, around the same end non-consumable wealth available.

Purchase a single scroll of a first level spell:
Purchase price 25 gp

Scribe a single scroll of a first level spell:
Purchase access to spell from NPC caster: 5 gp
Scribe spell in spellbook: 10 gp
Scribe scroll of said spell: 12.5 gp
Overall cost: 27.5 gp

So, for single spells, where you claim it is needed for power levels, it will be cheaper to just buy a scroll of the same spell. Note that the same cost breakdowns will continue up through the spell level of the scroll.

Note that scribing a scroll at a higher caster level than the minimum level to cast the spell involved will also increase the cost of the scroll, not to mention increase the amount of paperwork involved for each scroll.

A few other things, for your consideration:
Wizard is a legacy class, from 3.0, indeed, from Original D&D, and Paizo did not make major changes to the framework when they updated 3.5 to PF.
CR does not take any of the party member's feats, classes, abilities, or skills, into account. All it takes into account is the APL, Average Party Level, of the PCs. It doesn't care if you have a party consisting of the classic party -- Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard -- or a party composed entirely of Bards. APL is APL is APL.

And CR is CR, and doesn't care if it as calculated correctly or not. A CR 3 encounter will garner the same experience, whether it is a Shadow, or a 4th level negative channeling Cleric with normal NPC wealth, or a 3rd level negative channeling Cleric with PC level wealth. It doesn't even care if the NPC is built on the Elite attribute spread or not, and whether the Cleric's Charisma makes the Will save DC 9 or 17, or if he can channel once or 8 times per day.

Grand Lodge ****

Depends on whether your PC has been played at 4th level Ranger, yet, and whether the archetype switches out anything from lower levels.

Remember, if the archetype hasn't changed anything for the levels you played the class at, and you haven't played it at a level where there are differences, then you can switch into it for free in PFS, IIRC.

Grand Lodge

The sequence includes a bunch of really bad rolls from Roll20. Nothing above a 5, at one point, IIRC, from Mouse.

I don't think Mouse would have been hit on the second round, if he had continued the Total Defense, and I think I would have ruled it as a bonus to his Reflex, in this case, when the floor dropped out.

She attacked Mouse because he had whacked her hardest of everyone, and where everyone was placed.

She didn't channel, because she preferred melee first, until she was trying to open her escape route. Unfortunately, while the Cleric had stabilized Mouse, he didn't want to heal him while the BBEG was adjacent to him. Probably a wise choice, but it backfired when the Cleric went down on the first Channel.

Now, if Aeris had moved, or been more amenable to being hit, she probably wouldn't have Channeled. Unfortunately, Aeris is one of those high AC builds, so she needed something like a 16 on the die (or was it a 19?) to hit him. Then another PC came and locked her in place. She was looking to drop either of those two, so she could get back some maneuvering room. Unfortunately, Mouse and the Cleric suffered for it.

I dunno, Diviner Wizard seems to have some issues. Always going in the surprise round is nice, if you have something worth going in that round FOR, besides not getting caught flatfooted. Spamming a CL1 wand of MM at 3rd level just seems a bit ... weak, to me, and that despite having a PC who did just that during a scenario.

@Rerednaw: Ah, well, the PCs are locked into a room for a rest, since they burned a lot of resources, and your replacement PC, whatever he might turn out to be, will be 4th level with standard WbL, 6K gp.

@Orfamay: I had a choice between 4 players and allowing animal companions, followers, eidolons, ettc,; or a 5 player party without. I chose 5 player.

Also, with classes limited to Core, for the most part, eidolons are few and far between.

Now, the party could try the Summon Monster trick, but 3 or 4 rounds duration doesn't help much.

Grand Lodge

@Joesi: I don't understand your argument, because you are using pieces that do not go together.

UMD to activate a scroll wrote:

Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don't have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check.

This use of the skill also applies to other spell completion magic items.

UMD to activate a wand wrote:
Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge.

So, are you also saying that a Rogue, as an example, who wants to use a Wand of Cuire Light Wounds needs to make TWO UMD checks? One to emulate having the Cleric spell list, and a second to activate the wand?

No, all you need to do, in either case, is make the UMD roll to activate the item, as that is what the roll is for:

Quote:

Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list

This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list.[quote[

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Would such additions to damage be considered "unusual"?

Usually.

Spoiler:
;)

Grand Lodge ****

I think they are in the Dragon's Demand paper minis set, from Paizo.

At least, that is where I recall getting the pictures I used (from the PDF) for my online game, when I ran it a while back.

Dragon's Demand Paper Minis

Otherwise, just try searching something like Google Images for them. You would probably need to size the images found, yourself. Or use the ones form the module, manually pulled and re-sized...

Spoiler:
Don't expect any of the Grioths, other than the Fighter, to be much trouble for the party. They are, overall, fairly wimpy, especially since they initially run into the party when they are 3rd or 4th level, and the basic Grioth, IIRC, is only CR 1...

Yangethe, on the other hand, might be an issue, but the party should be fairly capable by then. In my game, only the initial attack, done after teleporting in, was much of an issue for the party.

Of course, a 4 PC party will have more issues than a 6 PC party, especially with many combat animals...

Grand Lodge ****

jtaylor73003 wrote:
The point stands Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion should be consider by PFS to be added back in because there are classes focus on using them to be compitive in combat.

This statement is so far from the truth that it is totally insubstantial. Or is that unsubstantiated?

Wizards, in no way shape or form, require Scribe Scroll to be competitive in combat. All Scribe Scroll would do allow them to dominate combat even more than they do with their prepared spells.

Alchemists, likewise, do not need Scribe Scroll to be competitive in combat. Increasing numbers of dice of damage in a Touch AC targeted attack? Yeah, not competitive.

I have seen both, in high level PFS play, shut down an encounter, either by outright killing a single BBEG in one round, Alchemist, to shutting down a crowd of enemies, 7 to be precise, using Dazing Arc Lightning.

Sure, the well-built archer or gunslinger can remain competitive at that level, but with much higher gold expenditure. But for non-range-focused combatants? Way more gold, or other expenses, in order to be able to get into melee and deliver full attacks.

No, seriously, base your argument on anything but that either Alchemist or Wizard need Scribe Scroll to remain competitive in combat.

Maybe the Sorcerer? They have that pesky Known Spell List that seriously impedes their ability to remain as all-around useful as, say, Wizards....

Grand Lodge ****

Tabletop Giant wrote:
Atragon wrote:
Tabletop Giant wrote:
... We're toying with something we're calling "Build Plans"...
That sounds very cool and exciting. Will you be able to change things in the middle without having to go back and re-do everything? (For example, in a 10 level build, feat choice at level 5 without having to re-do levels 6-10 (as long as pre-reqs are still met).)

That's the idea. The intent is that you can swap out parts without redoing the whole; though it will do a validation check for prerequisites so that you won't be able to create shenanigan builds. What it does with feats (or other things) that become invalid remains to be decided. Should they be automatically removed as well? Rendered as invalid in the build and flagged?

It will be fun to settle those questions once we get there.

By the way, just as a pain in the neck, for higher level PCs, there needs to be a way to do things like add 2 extra stat points (several things, including one non-item bonus that affects new PCs, can do this) or an extra feat (at least one item does this), or make other, non-standard changes to the PC.

Chronicles Break Things:
Protege status adds 2 stat points to a new 1st level PC.
The cursed ocher rhomboid Ioun stone adds a feat.
There is a boon on an AP chronicle that adds 2 to a stat.

Grand Lodge ****

Also, to add to Jessex's post, the CR system is broken, it is not very accurate.

Just consider adding the "Young" simple template to anything that is already Dex-based. Does it really lower the CR of that creature?

I can just see the following:

Dark Stalker (CR 4)
Unchained Rogue 3 (+2 CR)
Young (-1 CR)

Is that really a CR 5 opponent?

Grand Lodge ****

Azouth wrote:
Curaigh wrote:

I had a player bothered that my cleric didn't step up to the fight and give him a flanking bonus. "I have a Strength penalty I don't have a weapon."

The GM said 'you can still threaten with a Strength penalty, you can still provide flanking.'

"I have a Strength penalty. I don't HAVE a weapon, because I can't CARRY it." And yes spending all my encumbrance to keep my healer's AC up, still seems like a good trade for an ineffective weapon. :)

You can't even carry a 1 pound dagger?

Actually, depending on how he gets his AC up, he may actually already have a weapon, as the gauntlets from most medium and heavy armor count as weapons, IIRC.

Grand Lodge ****

Note: For a level 3 PC getting GM credit for a 1-5 scenario, he would also only get access to the sub-tier 1-2 item list, not both, as well as out-of-sub-tier gold.

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 ****

Chris Clay wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Stuff

Kinevon, the way I interpret this is:

1) Rebuild your character BEFORE applying chronicles. Rebuild your level one at level one.
2) Apply chronicles sequentially. In HeroLab, add enough to get one level, then level your character up. Don't add all your chronicles at one, as it allows for some illegal option.
3) Once you've completed adding all your chronicles, buy equipment and start playing.

This is my interpretation. The level one rebuild rules, as it applies to GM blobs, is not an inappropriate advantage.

To the OP, Jayson MF Kip - the same thing applies. Your rogue won't have a +1 BAB until level 2, so you don't get to rebuild him for free. As for your other hypothetical, yes, you'd have to pay for that assuming you had something else. A level 3 fighter, non-human, could have Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack at level 3, leaving your level 4 feat for Weapon Specialization.

All of this, of course, is my opinion. I don't know of any ruling anywhere that backs this up, this is just what I feel the intention of the process is.

I hope this helps.

Chris,

The answer is in the free level rebuild text, actually, see the italicized text in the quote below..

Quote:
At the start of a Pathfinder’s career, you are allowed to adjust your character before settling in for the long haul. Before you level up a character for the first time, you may change any aspect of it except its Pathfinder Society Number. Changes may only be made between adventures and before playing as a character above 1st level. Any exceptions will be noted in the Pathfinder Society FAQ. You are able to keep all treasure, Prestige Points, special boons, and XP that you have earned and apply them to the character once you retrain as long as the character meets the criteria above. You are only able to retrain into a legal race.

And, yes, it can be a pain, in a program like HeroLab, to make sure you are making a legal-without-retraining PC, as it is ugly to just sit on the chronicles, and not enter them when received, for a PC, since that can lead to other bookkeeping issues.

I just have a bunch of level 2 blobs, right now. The have legal builds, but none of them, that haven't played after reaching 2nd level, are married to their builds.

Not to mention all the legal free retrains for higher level Barbarians, Monks, Rogues and Summoners going around right now. And my Dhampir is still in retrain limbo, because he is in the "Cannot be used as what he has previously been played as, since Undead Lord has been banned, but the next time he is played, other than expensive-in-PP costs rebuilds, he is stuck as that. Which means a boon chronicle race PC may be screwed because of sunning out of room to look at options, and how they play out with his differences."

Grand Lodge ****

Crystal Frasier wrote:
Players can absolutely be from the Mwangi Expanse. The area features tons of small towns and tribes, as well as several large city-states, it just doesn't have one strong, central political entity (making it more like the River Kingdoms or Galt than, say, Cheliax or Taldor).

Crystal, sorry to correct you, but, without some sort of miracle, or deific intervention, players cannot be from the Mwangi Expanse.

Player characters, on the other hand, can be.

Indeed, I know one of my PCs has Mwangi as his origin, I remember someone, on my all-too-long list of PCs, speaks Polyglot as his native language....

Grand Lodge ****

I would probably recommend starting out with three scenarios or modules:

5-08 The Confirmation (1-2)
6-10 The Wounded Wisp (1-2)

For the third one, depending on desires, either:
3-I1 First Steps, Part 1: In Service to Lore (1)
Module: Master of the Fallen Fortress (1-2, 1 XP, 1 PP)
Module: Crypt of the Everflame (1-2, 3 XP, 4 PP)
Module: The Godsmouth Heresy (1-2, 3 XP, 4 PP)

For sheer zaniness, and general destructiveness:
Module: We Be Goblins! (1-2, 1 XP, 1 PP, only the provided goblin pregens)

After that, consider themes. There are a couple of posts on the GM boards with suggested scenario lists for certain themes, like the run to Eyes of the Ten, or regional themes.

Grand Lodge

A wand of grease, at lower levels.

Grand Lodge

Cevah wrote:

The Fly skill has wording prohibiting training until you can reliably fly. The Witch's Fly hex is sufficient a 5*1-minute fly-spell-like effects. I think there was a post by JJ or SKR, or perhaps a FAQ to that effect. I was clearly not always-on. By this example, a sometimes-on feat would be OK for me as GM.

/cevah

I can see your point, but I would tend to disagree, myself.

An ability, even just usable once per day for 3 minutes flight time, like the Fly from Celestial Armor, is something you could use to train a skill.

But, is something you get for a single round at a time, for only X*Ki times a day, sufficient to learn how to manipulate it well enough to get a feat from it?

Grand Lodge

Dave Justus wrote:
Canthin wrote:

Is a Wizard with Mage Armor active in violation of casting spells while wearing armor?

Nope.

It is not "armor" it is a spell that grants an Armor bonus, that is all.

I don't disagree that Mage Armor isn't armor, however there is no such thing as 'violation of casting spells while wearing armor' for wizards.

I think what Canthin was trying to say is that the spell Mage Armor, just like the Bracers of Armor X wondrous item, do not provide an Arcane Spell Failure chance, as they are not real armor.

Either that, or Canthin was having a flashback to the old OD&D/AD&D days...

White box, for the win!

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 ****

Well, since Evil alignment infractions need warning that the action is evil before being given, so should Good alignment infractions, yes?

And, honestly, in PFS, since there is no defined time between games, just let the XN character do something evil offscreen, instead of requiring it be done onscreen to cancel out a good tick.

Grand Lodge ****

melferburque wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
John Francis wrote:


I always assumed that the reason VOs got scenarios for free was so that we could print out a hardcopy of a scenario for a GM to use.
Yep. I never had to purchase a scenario if it was at a game day run by a VO. I have only purchased them for personal game groups.

I have never received a free scenario from a VO. then again, I can count on one hand the number of times I even saw a VO at my store in eighteen months.

sure, I picked up a lot of my scenarios when they were on sale, but I've still purchased over fifty scenarios and modules.

Well, let's see, shall we share sad stories?

My area is on its 4th VC. The first VC was fairly active in promoting and helping out at the Saturday gaming I was organizing at a local store to fill ion on other Saturdays than the then-monthly Game Day.

The second VC wound up retiring from VCing fairly rapidly, since real life (wife and child, maybe job) kept him from being active. Recent request from him was to remove him from the mailing list I had setup for our local PFSers to send out information on the Saturday and Sunday games being organized at the local stores.

The third VC was doing a fair job, but he was concentrating on trying to get PFS into some of the local conventions that were fringish for gamers, as our local big gaming convention died; and a local convention that was being started as part of a national chain only had one, maybe two, conventions. He retired from VC a little while ago, due to real life time constraints.

Our fourth VC, the current one, is trying to organize, but running into a few of the local time issues, and started by trying to get people involved with online gaming sessions. He is going to be moving back to face-to-face, if I understand his recent emails correctly, and I wish him good luck.

I have gotten a few scenarios free, but, usually, when I was scheduled to run a scenario at a con for one of our VCs, it usually wound up being one(s) I had already purchased. My current scenario collection, IIRC, includes all but the last 2 or 4 scenarios released, including the retired scenarios from Season 0. That is a lot of scenarios, my Paizo Downloads page is quite long. And I am still missing a few of the softcovers, and one or two of the Pathfinder hardcovers on that list.

However, Paizo does do some recognition, besides just putting pretty pictures in front of your name, for their GMs. One of the recent things that they did, for 4 and 5 star GMs, was the arrangement with Syrinscape. Which is much appreciated, and is awesome.

Grand Lodge

TGMaxMaxer wrote:

If a barbarian with 12 Str can take power attack based on being able to rage for x rounds per day, and thus qualify, then a monk who has it as a Ki power for X rounds a day can do the same thing. (I am currently looking for the link to that thread, as it was clarified that he could take the feat but only use it while raging)

However, like I said, the monk could only use the feats with PA as a prereq on rounds that he burned ki for PA as well.

I would like to see that link, please, as, otherwise, how do you have the prereq "long" enough to learn the feat?

After all, does that mean that a third level Wizard with second level spells, and an 11+ Dex could learn TWF, since he can grant himself a 15+ Dex for a few minutes for each of his second level spell slots using Cat's Grace? Or a 9+ Str and Bull's Strength, for Power Attack.

Grand Lodge

Athose Immortius Aeternia wrote:

NNNOOOO!!!! It apparently checks vs spell resistance!

My plan has been fouled!

Unless it is a custom Worm that Walks, it doesn't have SR...

Edit: But it does have several options that would allow it to deal with that wall, one way or another.

Grand Lodge

Touch attack, usually.

Effects would depend on swarm type, and material used for the "attack".

Remember that even a crawling swarm is more than just a simple layer on the ground, they will be on top of each other, and, if possible, go up on at least the lower part of the wall.

Grand Lodge ****

Part of the problem in this thread is people with no experience at GMing at conventions, or GMing at Game Days, chiming in with incorrect or off-base information.

GMing at a Game Day, individually, is a bit of effort, You have to prepare the one (or two, if the Game Day has time for two slots, and not enough GMs to allow one slot's GMs to play during the other slot) scenario you are supposed to be running that day.

Depending on the scenario, and how you prep, that can take hours.

GMing at a Convention, especially if you are not a "casual" GM, who only volunteered for one or two slots, is a lot more intensive, for a lot less time, in many cases. Especially for GenCOn and PaizoCon, where you may only be receiving some of the newer scenarios, or specials, you are scheduled to run, a week before the Convention.

If you are lucky, or ask nicely, you might only have two or three different scenarios to prep, at only a few sub-tiers. On the other hand, if the Convention is trying to cover as much territory as possible, you can wind up having to prepare 10 different scenarios.

So, preparing to run at a Con, overall, is much higher stress, for a shorter time, than preparing to run for a Game Day. That is ignoring all the expenses both GMs have to deal with that are similar, like printing out the scenario(s), sign-up sheet(s), chronicles, etc. Add-in some of the expenses, whether covered by the Con organizers or not, associated with a Con, and the Con GM is paying more money, out of pocket, than the Game Day GM is, on a single session basis.

Depending on VO support, the Game Day GM might wind up with higher expenses, for the year, than the Con GM, if the Con GM only GMs at a single Con. On teh other hand, the Con GM does have things like potential airfare costs, and car rental costs, that the Game Day GM is probably not going to see.

Note: I won't get into the opportunity costs of private vs public transportation for GMs, as I have experienced both, and am always grateful to my players for a ride home afterwards. What sucks are the Game Days that don't happen, due to insufficient people showing up. Which is why I arranged the day I coordinated to run concurrent to the game store's board game night....

Grand Lodge ****

Artoo wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Crafting is an individual activity, and this is a shared campaign. Activities that occur off-camera or only benefit you while disadvantaging your colleagues is a bad fit.

Couldn't you say the same thing about just buying equipment in general? Or Day Jobs for that matter. And probably a large number of other things.

Crafting, in general, breaks things.

Either: The crafter(s) are too powerful for their level, minimizing the challenge level of the games they play, or, and this is worse, IMO, the scenarios are upped in difficulty to chasllenge the crafters, leaving the non-crafters with all sorts of negative effects, from loss of gp due to less effective equipment, which also leads to loss of PP and GP to pay for various remedies needed more often, like Raise Dead, Remove <various conditions>, etc.

One of the problems I experienced when I played mid-level LG, around 8th or 9th level, is that it was easy for the non-crafters to get behind the gold curve, and, what should be a fairly useful build becomes ineffective due to being, effectively, undergeared. The other problem I experienced was how deadly many of the scenarios, expecially Core, became, especially if you didn't have a crafter in your party to balance the changes made to accommodate having crafters in the game.

People here complain about Shadows and Wights in low tier games. I think I don't see as much of a problem because I experienced LG, which had things like Mummies in low tier games.

Prestige farming: That's people who hate, currently, not getting the 2 PP per scenario, and already prefer not to play modules because they are only 4 PP. Something like this, other than requiring a spreadsheet, and several pages in the Guide to explain, would also encourage people to want to get maximum Prestige, so that they can craft more.

To be honest, the campaign does have a bit of Magic Mart feel, and my own proposal, on certain magic items, would actually increase that feel, in part.

I just feel that certain magic items should be added to the Always Available list, in addition to what is on there. Not so much game breakers, but the things that are so commonly purchased that someone could have already setup a production line for them.

Common magical items:

  • Handy Haversack
  • Pearl of Power 1
  • Rod of Metamagic: Extend
  • +2 stat items, single stat only

I am sure there are other things, I am just not thinking of them all right now.

Note: No price discount, just available without need to meet the Fame requirements for a few, select, items.

Grand Lodge ****

Mike Bramnik wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Has anyone out there played or GMed these at a participating store? If so, do you have any feedback or comments? We really would like to make this program special and improve upon it, but can only do so with the community's help. Thanks in advance.

Our FLGS only just got the quest (after some issues that Chris L helped clear up on the CS side of things) today, so I'll be running these soon! Huzzah!

One quick question, though - the Chronicle Sheet being 4-6 - does that indicate that this must be applied to a character of levels 4-6 only?

Thanks very much!

Pretty much. As any chronicle, it can be attached to a lower level PC, but not higher, but the boons won't be available until the PC reaches the minimum chronicle level, in this case, 4th level.

And, since there is no XP, PP, or GP, it is only a boon chronicle...

Grand Lodge

Belafon wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

It would fall under the same logical conclusion as the Barbarian with 12 Strength taking the Power Attack feat. Yes, he can have it. It only functions while raging.

So, for the Monk, if he spent the Ki to activate power attack for a round, he could use feats that have Power Attack as a pre-req for a round.

The question isn't "could he use the feat" it's "could he qualify to take the feat at all?" You must meet the prerequisites to learn a feat. And Wiggz is asking about a feat that has Power Attack as a prerequisite.

No is the ruling all the PFS GMs I know (including myself) use. While the time to learn a feat from leveling isn't quantified, it doesn't seem to be one round or less (the time you have Power Attack from Qiggong).

What you can do is take Power Attack at level 3, swap out slow fall for the ki power "Power Attack" at level 4, take the feat that has Power Attack as a prerequisite at level 5, then retrain out of the Power Attack feat.

I don't think that would work, sinc eth eQi Gong version isn't always active, so it may not allow you to bypass one of the feat retraining rules:

Quote:
The old feat can't be one you used as a prerequisite for a feat, class feature, archetype, prestige class, or other ability.

If you got the feat from a source that was always-on, sure, you would do that, but since it is, in this case, still serving as a prerequisite, I don't think it could be retrained.

Example:
Someone with Weapon Finesse, and some feat dependent on it, takes a level of Unchained Rogue. they could retrain that earlier Weapon Finesse, since it is replaced by the always-on version gained as a bonus feat from Unchained Rogue.

Grand Lodge ****

Other Effects: Even more prestige farming, for crafters you could kiss any modules, and APs goodbye. Other than, maybe, Fangwood. Not to mention that burning Prestige is, IMO, a worse implementation of between scenario time than the old LG TUs were.

Grand Lodge ****

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 ****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:

At this point it just sounds like you don't want want to put forth the effort

You can't fault my alleged lack of effort when you can't even be bothered to listen.

You don't understand the argument.

You don't understand the point.

You don't understand at least half the problem.

Tell me, in one sentence, why sitting in my underwear running a game online is dming to be encouraged with boons, while playing at a game day is not.

Why is one opportunity something that is subsidized with boons while the other is not. Give me an answer, not an insult.

Because a Con can create hundreds of new PFS players, and therefore sales opportunities for Paizo products, where game stores create maybe one or two in a week, so maybe 30 in a good year.

Grand Lodge

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

Joesi wrote:

I don't know much about the subject of magic item power classifications, but I would think that permanency would be a major magic item since there's only 5% chance of it appearing as a medium item, compared to a massive chance as a major one.

Anyway that aside, read magic isn't the main thing they'd need to do, since I presume that they could take 20 on a spellcraft check to do so as long as they had at least a total bonus of +5 to spellcraft (which isn't hard if they're at least a few levels and have some int).

The big issue would be with actually casting the spell from a scroll without being a caster. That would require multiple Use Magic Device checks.

The first would be to emulate a class feature (able to cast arcane spells), which is DC 20, but will benefit from being higher.

Secondly, they may need to make a UMD check (DC 30) to emulate an ability score if they don't have the necessary 15 int.

Next, they'll have to make a UMD check (DC 29) to emulate that spell being on their class's spell list.

Next, they'll have to make a caster level check (DC 10) using their emulated caster level from the first UMD check in order to successfully cast the spell.

Overall, it will be very difficult to do, since taking 10 and taking 20 are not an option. It wouldn't even be possible to do at all without at least a +9 total bonus to UMD. Even with that, the risk of rolling a 1 in any of the many attempts would prevent any further attempts to activate the scroll for that day, resulting in likely a matter of many days to activate the scroll with only +9 UMD.

You are using too many UMD rolls, there.

To use a scroll of a spell:
Read Magic or DC 20+ spell level Spellcraft check to decipher the scroll (once)
DC 20+ caster level (Permanency, as a 5th level spell, will have a CL of 9, minimum)
DC 30 UMD check if they do not have either Int or Char of 15+

No need to emulate being a spell caster, nor having a caster level.

From UMD:

Use a Scroll wrote:
Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don't have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check.

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
Did a ruling on whether you can use more than one bardic performance in a round ever come out?

No ruling has came out.

The language in bardic music could be interpreted to limit you to one performance per round.

At my table you wouldn't be able to Weird Words and then have your familiar Weird Words in the same round.

Is there any language in the new Weird Words that suggests it is instantaneous or otherwise isn't something that deals damage over the course of the round in which it is performed?

I don't see any wording in Weird Words that would not make it instantaneous.

It is treated, as far as the FAQ appears to go, as a Ray-type effect, so, unlike, say Acid Arrow, it is over and done, and a caster target wouldn't need to make a Concentration check on their next turn to cast a new spell.

Quote:
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.

So, does that mean you can maintain the Weird Words performance, to speak new words each round, and would they automatically hit the same targets if they hit originally, or do you need a new attack roll for each round?

Grand Lodge ****

kinevon wrote:

Linkfied

And an Elf Ranger for me, this time around.

Gah. I hope I got it fixed, this time.

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

FiddlersGreen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

absurdity. (there's no trick to get your animal to eat. It starves to death.)

Ha, I'm totally stealing this line.

"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Unless you can figure out a trick to Push it at a DC 25 ...

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I suppose another option would be to cast the spell on a rope, put the rope on the horse. Smacking it on the rump and telling it to "giddyup" ought to work.

And don't tell that druid i said this, but it comes with the added advantage of not going POOF when someone kills the horse.

And the rope wouldn't get a Will save against the Silence spell, so no need to mess around getting the mount to fail the save.

Overall, rope. Training harness, IIRC, gives a bonus to Handle Animal checks with the animal it is on, might be only for training it, though.

So, Mount spell.
Silence on a normal piece of rope or thread (purchasable items)
Attach rope to Mount's tack, it now carries Silence with it, no Will save required.
Use Handle Animal to push it to go someplace, penalties due to lack of sound, possible bonus due to actions

Mount goes to target area.
Enemy wastes actions killing Mount.
Rope with Silence falls to ground when Mount disappears.
Laugh silently but evilly....

Grand Lodge ****

Tamec wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

Remember Pathfinders. Using a little bit of blood to learn spells is evil.

But consuming souls or using the heads of your foes as weapons is fine!

A pint of fresh blood is not a little bit....it's 10% of the blood in the (human) body. When I think of a little bit I picture the blood needed to test for insulin. If you still think it's a little bit remember this next time you are out for drinks and get a pint...first time I got one after reading that spell I thought, "holy <bleep> you have to drink that much blood."

Yep, a pint is 16 fluid ounces, 2 full cups.

Grand Lodge ****

Tabletop Giant wrote:
kinevon wrote:
SunstonePhoenix wrote:
Tabletop Giant wrote:

Allowing two steps would be a neat trait.

Perhaps call it something like "Blind Faith" or "Divine Hypocrisy", with a description along the lines of "Your profound faith in the divine allows you to overlook their moral shortcomings." Taking it grants the ability to worship a deity that is up to two steps away from yours instead of the typical one step.

It could be argued that the deity involved would allow it as it is an opportunity to influence an individual outside of their standard alignment scope (and deities love them some influence).

Just a thought for fun.

"Blind Faith" would be a great name for something like this. I'm sure that it could also lead to some interesting interactions/conflicts with other worshipers who are of the deity's alignment. Questions of how a deity's worship is practiced seems like it has great potential for character development.

Nice idea, but it would open up some combinations that would be a bit... odd.

Asmodean or Pharasmin Paladins, for example.
I admit that this type of 'odd' always appeals to me; I like quirky things like that. It's also worth mentioning that this sort of trait does have mild precedence (at least in that a trait may influence alignment requirements) in the 'Enlightened Warrior' trait, which allows a monk to be of a different alignment (albeit also limited) than it's class requires.

I would seriously love to see a Paladin archetype similar to Martial Artist, that removes one of the alignment restrictions, if not both of them, from the Paladin class. Of course, there would be trade-offs, but it ought to be interesting, at least.

Grand Lodge ****

SunstonePhoenix wrote:
Tabletop Giant wrote:

Allowing two steps would be a neat trait.

Perhaps call it something like "Blind Faith" or "Divine Hypocrisy", with a description along the lines of "Your profound faith in the divine allows you to overlook their moral shortcomings." Taking it grants the ability to worship a deity that is up to two steps away from yours instead of the typical one step.

It could be argued that the deity involved would allow it as it is an opportunity to influence an individual outside of their standard alignment scope (and deities love them some influence).

Just a thought for fun.

"Blind Faith" would be a great name for something like this. I'm sure that it could also lead to some interesting interactions/conflicts with other worshipers who are of the deity's alignment. Questions of how a deity's worship is practiced seems like it has great potential for character development.

Nice idea, but it would open up some combinations that would be a bit... odd.

Asmodean or Pharasmin Paladins, for example.

1 to 50 of 4,409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.