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

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 847 posts. 16 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 22 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 847 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ****

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Pathfinders need Cha-based skills, particularly diplomacy, in *every* scenario, whether it's to get info at the beginning using gather information, or by talking to NPCs later, or to achieve the whole mission. There is no other ability score that you are guaranteed to use every game, since there are now (a few) scenarios that don't require combat at all, but there are none that don't require talking to NPCs and gathering information.

That is a significant overstatement. There are lots of scenarios where diplomacy has no significant effect and I've never played one where nobody took any damage (is, con is always useful).

Also, you pretty much only need 1 character in the group with good diplomacy.

That said, LOTS of my characters have good charisma and social skills. But that is because I LIKE interaction, not because I NEED to

Silver Crusade

Aasimar make a very nice race, regardless of class choice. Some protection against negative energy can help, and heavenly radiance can round out your attacks nicely.

But yeah, cleric seems the best overall choice to me. Good saves help it a lot.

Silver Crusade ****

If you have played the character at level 2 or higher you can NOT change the characters race

Silver Crusade ****

Expect GM variation. Reflavoring is, in general, frowned upon and is strictly disallowed if there are ANY mechanical benefits. So, your elf will speak elf, be visibly an elf, be subject to elf bane, etc

What IS clearly legal is to play an insane elf who thinks that he is a lizardman from a strange culture. If you're happy with that as a backup plan when you hit a table that doesn't allow reflavoring then you're golden.

Silver Crusade ****

Shasfowd wrote:

But then why would knowledge like whether or not you know what the Blakros museum is be accepted?

This is an area where you just have to expect GM variation. Some GMs allow characters to remember what they've experienced, some don't, some require some sort of roll (int roll, knowledge skill with a bonus, etc). The rules pretty much support all of these approaches and all can be justified both in world and in game.

Knowledges in general are one of the areas with the largest amount of GM variation.

Silver Crusade **** is used for all of OOntario and includes Ottawa.

Silver Crusade

There is one PFS scenario that used the troop rules (Assault on the Wound). They got pretty thoroughly trashed in the reviews.

I have no clue if it was run correctly, but when I played a single "affects all creatures in the area" spell took it out ( I think it was Burst of Radiance). Others were complaint about the number of deaths that multiple missile attacks on a single target achieve.

Personally, if new rules yield a quicker resolution but approximately the same result as compared to running the same combat with the base rules then I'm fine with them but if they yield a substantially different result then I hate them. And my impression is that the Troop rules yield a very different result

Silver Crusade ****

thistledown wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:

After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who took the same approach.
My store is also considering baring all Kyle Baird scenarios except Confirmation.

I hate the Sealed Gate as much as anybody (my review stated that I think it is the worst PFS scenario I've ever played) but I think that this is a massive overreaction.

The Confirmation is superb.

6-03 is quite good. Its challenging but all the challenges are fair.

Haven't played Rats

Silver Crusade

Aelryinth wrote:

Eh, low skill point classes that should have skills, like the fighter, consider it a railroad to be forced to play human, have a high int, and to spend their FCB on skill points just so they have enough to be barely functional.

Strangely, you will notice that spellcasting classes don't complain about low skill points. that's because they have spells, and/or rely on high Int anyways.

The classes without magical powers should not be forced to rely on non-class buffs just to be fair with skills. Indeed, the fighter is the most non-magical class out there, which means he should be swimming in skill points since he doesn't waste any time on magical tricks like every other class does.


This is an absurd exaggeration. The bog standard fighter really doesn't need more skill points than he has (climb, swim, intimidate).

Ranger, various archetypes, etc are there pretty much precisely so that you can play a fighting sort with more skill points. Choosing to play a fighter is pretty much explicitly deciding that you don't really care about skills.

I'd have no problem if fighters got more skill points but they're hardly crippled in the current system.

The class that actually bothers me the most is cleric. There are lots of skills that they SHOULD have at reasonable levels that they just can't really afford. And they DEFINITELY should have some kind of 1/2 level bonus to their knowledge religion. Its just silly that wizards, bards, etc all know more about religion than they do. The cloistered cleric is a step in the right direction but they made taking it FAR too expensive for what one gets.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Secane wrote:
Edit: So the Technologist feat is not required for certain skill checks? They just have a bonus to such checks? Or is this in reverse, where those that lack the Technologist feat takes a penalty but can still complete the check?
It sounds like the Technologist feat is required to make the checks, but the scenarios are supposed to be written so those without it can get to the same result through puzzle solving/deduction.

This is exactly what it sounds like. It makes it so people that are specialized in dealing with Numerian tech are just that--specialized. And everyone else will have a harder time of figuring it out.

This shouldn't be a problem though, because of good scenario design there are still going to be alternative solutions that don't involve having the feat. So parties without it can use to progress through the game.

Uh, John Compton did post that this was a lesson they learned AFTER the first 3 scenarios. Don't expect too great a design in those first three

Silver Crusade ****

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Undone wrote:
It's more that season 6 is indescribably lethal for little reason other than lethality.
Weird. None of the Season 6 tables I've seen have had ANY lethal results.

In fairness, I imagine there has been a HUGE amount of table variance with the first 3 scenarios. All the issues addressed in the Blog would be treated very, very differently at different tables. How hardness is treated could have a major impact on lethality.

I've played in all 3 scenarios so far and we got lots of information WITHOUT the technologist feat, for example.

Silver Crusade ****

Dylos wrote:
I believe 5-24 Assault on the Wound, and 5-25 Vengeance at Sundered Crag have the answers you seek.

They most certainly do NOT. They state what happens as far as the society and Jorundan are concerned but that doesn't address the larger issue of the World wound at all.

Silver Crusade ****

I asked this over in the general setting thread and was told the answer is campaign dependent.

So I'll ask it here to get a PFS campaign specific answer.

The Paths We Choose strongly implies that the Worldwound has gone quiet, that the Fifth Crusade is over.

I know that what happened isn't spelled out in the Season 5 ending scenarios nor the Season 6 scenarios.

I'm guessing that the Adventure Path resolved things.

Can somebody possibly give me a spoiler free quick synopsis of what the current state in PFS land is supposed to be?

Silver Crusade ****

I'll add another voice to the "expect table variation" votes. I think that only the 2 listed rings would be PFS legal.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:

When I reach second level, I think that I am definitely giving Pumpkin a skill in linguistics. The way I see it, knowing a language will work well with some of Pumpkin's tricks, including fetch (fetch what?) and deliver (deliver what?) so that Pumpkin has a better idea of what is going on. It won't remove the need for tricks, but it will sure make the tricks work better.


Replying to both posts above in one.

It sounds like your GM was one of those who really hate ACs and goes out of their way to put obstacles in their way that are NOT in the rules. Making you roll an untrained Handle Animal roll for attacking a construct is very clearly wrong.

The linguistics skill is very useful with some GMs as it will cause them to more liberally interpret what an animal can do. With others (like the GM above) it will likely be all but useless.

I always take it, though. It helps to justify what the animal can and should do IN MY MIND. Makes things more realistic to ME. And that is more than worth the skill ppint

Silver Crusade ****

I wouldn't overstress about it. The first 3 scenarios are reasonably heavy on tech stuff but the ptb have stated that only 3 or so more in the season will be.

The rules with regard to tech and hardness are also very unclear and very obscure. Expect extreme table variation, at least until they dedicate a blog to it.

With all that said, having SOME means of getting by hardness is a good thing. Knowledge engineering will probably be more useful this season. The technologist feat is likely overkill unless it really fits your character concept

Silver Crusade ****

Kyle Baird wrote:

Regarding a recent review (and several other similar reviews):

"We had little time remaining so the GM, perforce hand waved a lot of it."

The scenario specifically states that if the scenario is being run in a constrained time slot (i.e. you're only given X hours), that the final encounter begins with 90 minutes remaining (assuming the PCs haven't figured a way to bypass it from happening at all).

Fair enough.

As I said in the review, I'm actually GLAD that the GM spent time where he did. With our group that was the right decision to maximize enjoyment.

Changed review to reflect new information

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:

A lot of people seem to think that honesty and honor is just about only saying literally true things, but I'm pretty sure that is not the intent of the paladins code. Being misleading is just as dishonorable as pointing over a guys shoulder and saying "hey look at that thing" and then stabbing him in the back. You led them to believe you were someone you aren't, how is that not lying?

I think that this may actually be the crux of the problem.

If a paladins code is interpreted too harshly then a paladin IS unplayable, even in a home game. With this interpretion it is totally trivial to make a paladin fall by putting them into a position where they tell a white lie or hurt someone.

PFS absolutely requires players and GMs to interpret ALL moral codes flexibly. Only in the most egregious circumstances does the GM tell the player what their character can't do. Only in the most egregious circumstances does a character refuse to cooperate with the group. Only in the most egregious of circumstances does a character try to impose their moral outlook on a group.

Adults play nice together.

I've played several characters with a strong set of morals in PFS (including a paladin to level 11). I've failed faction missions that I've refused to do. Once I nearly had to refuse a mission (ie, I was going to change characters after the briefing) but the GM was able to work with me to convince me that I COULD participate in good conscience. I've caused missions to proceed in unscripted ways because of my morals.

As long as adults play nice together there really are only minor issues.

Silver Crusade

The Paths We Choose strongly implies that the Worldwound has gone quiet, that the Fifth Crusade is over.

I know that what happened isn't spelled out in the Season 5 ending scenarios nor the Season 6 scenarios.

I'm guessing that the Adventure Path resolved things.

Can somebody possibly give me a spoiler free quick synopsis of what the current state in PFS land is supposed to be?

Silver Crusade ****

You might also want to mention it on PSOC. Or I can if you're OK with that

Silver Crusade ****

Silas Ruin wrote:

Current Roster:
1. Zelanys (Oracle 1) - Melee
2. Flynn (Druid 1) - Support

3. Hunter 2

Silver Crusade ****

"Benjaamin Falk wrote:
We had plenty of time

That might be the major difference right there. If you have 1/2 an hour or so to explain the rules, do a couple of examples, etc I'm sure things would go much better

Silver Crusade ****

Simon Kort wrote:

- The Nabasu managed to gaze at one point, taking down the horse of a player. Ghoul Horse! Much fun was had.

. The horse die but only humanoids come back as ghouls


- The scenario is unclear about how long the journey actually is, just that 6 rations are handed out.

I had them roll survival checks and pretended the result mattered :-). When they rolled high they caught up a little, low they lost ground.

As others have said, there is a LOT happening in this. I wish this had been a 2 parter, there easily is enough material and it would have allowed more time to play in the world wound with a high level party (the LOWEST entry in the random encounter table in the World wound book for this area is CR 11).

Fudge the heck out of the second encounter. I just ballparked average damage when the barbs and critturs were fighting

Silver Crusade ****

Benjamin Falk wrote:

I´ve read a lot of the complaints about assault on the wound and scars of the thrid crusade and i really can´t understand them.

Assault on the Wound closes part of the main storyline of season 5, the story is building up over several scenarios before and it was pretty clear that this type of event was coming. Just look at the boons....

. Moving all armies into one square and then wiping single players out is a bad GM move, not the scenarios fault. You can also ask your players not to do that. I had one destroyed player army due to the player not retrating in time and bad dice luck, but that was in the second battle. The first battle is a joke really. Also please don´t blame it on the scenario when you did not understand the mass combat rules properly or they were explained poorly. And bad player tactics or decisions is another such thing. Even in the final fight there is a save chance for the players, what is really nice. When i played it first, the sight of a creature with wings and an open mouth with a cliff going down 100 feet made my character secure herself with a rope at the ladder as a first action.

Story wise, I agree with you that Assault was a good wrap up, but mechanically

expecting GMs and players to competently play a brand new war game the first time IS a design flaw. The first battle is basically a practice run. But even so the game is more complex than can be mastered in a single 4 hour or so session.

And adding in a second new mechanic (troops) in the same scenario was an egregious mistake IMO

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

At Lvl 12, AC is mostly irrelevant.

Enemies will have +20 or more to hit, and that neat AC boost, won't mean a whole hell of a lot.

Just saying.

This is not true, ESPECIALLY for a character who also has a high touch AC.

My level 11 character can get his AC past 40. That is quite significant against +25 or even +30 (being hit 1/2 the time is a lot better than being hit 95% of the time). And it is quite possible to do better than that.

For many builds it is practical to keep your AC relevant at all levels, although it does take significant resource investment.

Only if your game is going to extremes in terms of high level rocket tag (and a great many do NOT) does a high AC become significantly less useful and, even then, it never gets to the point of "mostly irrelevant"

Silver Crusade

I am considering building a Kata Master monk who also has levels of swashbuckler.

Would such a character be able to use an unarmed strike with the precise strike deed from the swashbuckler?

"A kata master can use an unarmed strike or monk
special weapon in place of a light or one-handed piercing
melee weapon for granted swashbuckler class features and

A monk unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon so that isn't an issue.

The problem is that granted word. That could be taken to mean it only applies to deeds granted by the Kata Master. Alternatively, it could just be meant to make sure that it is clear that the Kata Master does not gain access to all swashbuckler features and deeds (a touch redundant but it clarifies things).

Silver Crusade ****

LazarX wrote:

Maybe he's confusing the Major with the previous head who sent his Pathfinders on missions frequently to cover up HIS indiscretions.

Um, other than rank, it IS the same guy isn't it? Or is this a joke that I'm missing?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its a fun feat, especially at the low to mid levels. One of the original goals for my monk was somebody designed to scree up spell casters and this was a useful part of that.

If you have room for it in your build its fine. But it definitely isn't an essential feat.

Note, it is seriously weakened if the GM metagames and has the bad guys act as if they knew about it.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Nefreet has been proven correct :-).

Expect table variation

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

When I ran Paths We Choose I failed when trying to present Major Maldris in a sympathetic light. He is such a complete hypocrite since he is clearly one of the more corrupt Andorans around, grossly abusing his power for personal ends.

If this faction is to be taken seriously by us old timers who played the various season 0-4 faction missions he really HAS to go.

Newer players won't have a clue what I'm talking about, of course, so I guess it becomes a self correcting problem over time

Silver Crusade ****

Mark Stratton wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Correction: There are more people who find deadly scenarios "unfun" who post reviews than those who enjoy "extreme challenges" and post reviews.

This. I have been talking with other GMs and what not, and the conclusion that we reached was that, perhaps, people who don't like a scenario (for whatever reason) are my inclined/likely to write a review (which would be negative) than those who enjoyed the scenario (and thus, don't write the corresponding positive review.)

I think Kyle's point is on the money.

That would tend to drive all review average numbers down. It doesn't speak to relative numbers between reviews

Silver Crusade ****

Kyle Baird wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
clearly there are more people who find death unfun than there are those who want extreme challenges.
Correction: There are more people who find deadly scenarios "unfun" who post reviews than those who enjoy "extreme challenges" and post reviews.

Sure. But that is the data point that we have, the one that you specifically started this thread to discuss.

While its absolutely certain that the people who post reviews form a tiny minority and therefore quite possible that the data is skewed it is absolutely impossible to infer in what way it is skewed. Perhaps the reviewers like challenges MORE than most players and UNDERVALUE death.

Either we decide that the reviews are vaguely representative of overall opinion or we decide they have no value. What we can NOT do (at least, we can't if we want to be intellectually honest) is to accept the reviews when they support our opinions and reject them when they don't.

Silver Crusade ****

Hmm wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I'll take any limitation on any animal companion I can get.

David --

I would love your advice as a GM who sometimes gets frustrated by Animal Companions. Are there etiquette things that I can do as a player to make my furry friend more welcome to the GMs that I play with?

The following comes mostly from the perspective of playing a Lion Shaman.

Having a clear personality helps. My druid was basically a crazy cat lady looking upon her lion as a frail creature that needed to be protected.

This let me, in character, often have the cat basically not do much. If the group had the heavy hitter/tank roles well filled, the lion would hang back and let the other characters do their thing.

But when things went south, or the group didn't have those roles, I'd get to unveil the absurd heights one can achieve with a buffed up lion. Didn't happen every session but was quite satisfying when it did.

The other thing I'd recommend is to not push too hard on what you have the cat do. Keep to things that would be reasonable in a movie for an animal that isn't insanely well trained (a pathfinder animal companion is LESS capable than a well trained circus animal). Have it react as an animal in amusing ways from time to time.

So, basically, be flexible and aware of the other players and their fun and you should have no difficulties.

Silver Crusade ****

May Contain Sarcasm wrote:

For almost every scenario, I find that there's usually at least one person who died/suffered a TPK and decided to blame the scenario rather than themselves/their party, and at least one person who blew through the scenario with no problems and wanted more of a challenge. That discrepancy is inevitable because dice (to say nothing of variable party makeup/optimization). So I discount those.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that scenarios with an excessive death toll get rated lower. The intent is to have fun and clearly there are more people who find death unfun than there are those who want extreme challenges.

But I don't think it is death that people REALLY dislike, I think it is what are perceived as unfair deaths.

Silver Crusade

One other thing to mention is the new Hunter class from the Advanced Character guide. It gets a significantly better AC in exchange for much worse spell progression. And it can make FULL use of all the tricks an intended 4 gives you at level 1.

One caveat: the rules about hunter tricks are somewhat unclear at the moment. RAW its pretty clear they get full and free access to all hunters tricks. But this may or may not be intended and there is a fair chance it will be errata'd at some point.

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Da Brain wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Well, my alchemist just leveled to 7th. I guess I could take Technologist for my playthrough of Silver Mount Collection and then retrain...
I'm betting there is going to be a lot of that going around....

Well, you also have to buy the book. Given my nearly total disinterest in the subject matter that is, to me, a far greater obstacle than retraining a feat.

Silver Crusade ****

Nefreet wrote:

I think it's clear if you read the actual page from the book.

The only skills you're using "against technology" are Craft, Disable Device, and Linguistics.

The skills you're using for "researching technology" are Knowledge and Heal.

Does anyone have a link to the other discussion? I seem to have missed it.

There really wasn't any discussion of what the feat covered. I asserted that it covered knowledge checks (that is how I read the feat) and nobody disagreed. John's post implies he interpreted it that way too.

The whole discussion is spread across 3 threads in the PFS/GMs forums.

If technologist only affects these skills then the whole thing becomes way less important. And the feat WAY less useful.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Haller wrote:

I don't have the book yet, but just to clarify: even without Technologist, a PC (say, an inquisitor) could make a K: Engineering check and get the full range of identifying info, powers, and so on? (ie. not cap at 10 per untrained?)

That was one of the big complaints in an earlier thread.

It pretty much just impacts Disable Device and Linguistics, then?

That is seriously unclear to me. The feat says :

You are familiar with the basic mechanics of technology.

Benefit: You are considered to be trained in any skill used against a technology-based subject. If the skill in question requires training to use even against non-technological subjects, you must still have ranks in that skill in order to gain the benefit of Technologist.

Normal: You treat all skill checks made against technology as if they were untrained skill checks. This may mean that you cannot attempt certain skill checks, even if you possess ranks in the skill in question.

And in the skills section knowledge engineering is listed in the research section.

Certainly when I read it I assumed that "all skill checks made against technology" included knowledge skills.

And its not as if this is the first time that important rules are buried in feats.

For what its worth I really, really want you to be right. So. Please convince me that your reading is the only correct one.

Silver Crusade ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
CireJack wrote:

So I am running at our local shop this week. I went ahead and posted the ruling on our facebook group so that folks could get acclimated to how its going to work.

My VC posted the following in response.

"I am aware that some players greatly dislike going into fights without knowing what they're up against. Without the ability to even make a knowledge check, I expect that their feelings will become more pronounced.

To prepare for this, I will have a cup available to hold the tears of any players who are upset by this ruling. GMs of Season 6 scenarios may drink from it freely."

That made me feel much better about this whole issue.

Well, that certainly seems like a great way for your VC to encourage PFS. People love it when they are publicly mocked for preferring a particular play style, especially when it is a play style that the rules actively encourage.

Clearly they should just happily embrace the fact that parts of their characters are useless in these scenarios (I'm presuming these players invested fairly heavily in knowledge skills) and stop whining. After all, they're just having badwrongfun anyway.

Silver Crusade ****

CireJack wrote:
In light of Johns post in the other thread, I now have no choice but to implement the feat. Little confused on items granted on the chronicle for 6-01 though. Can they be used without the technologist feat?

I don't see how. The same logic that says we're supposed to apply the feat to the scenarios would seem to apply to items found

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Back in the days of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D, .
pauljathome wrote:
I thought that I was running and playing Pathfinder and NOT 1st or second edition D&D. My mistake.

You are, pauljathome. Please read my post again. I'm not suggesting we abandon the Pathfinder RPG, and I'm honestly surprised that you'd think I was suggesting that we go back to THAC0 and different saving throws and all that.

I'm suggesting that, since the Pathfinder RPG now contains rules for super-science technology, there's a play style that John was advocating, and that we follow his advice. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

Please, just call me Paul :-).

I was being snarky in my response and I apologize for that (your reaction to my snarkiness was quite classy :-). And THAT is not snarky)

But I still think that advocating a change in play style, caused by an unanticipated rules change in an obscure splat book, in a comment buried in a thread is the wrong way to go about it.

As you yourself acknowledge, its a fairly significant change in play style.

Note, I am NOT saying I dislike that playstyle. Its just not the style PFS has had for the last 6 years.

Silver Crusade

Its in the PFS FAQ.

Pumpkin starts fully trained.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
James McTeague wrote:

Wait, what?

It just says "treat it as if it was untrained", not "you lose your ranks in that knowledge skill." It clarifies afterwards that it means that you can't make certain checks because they're untrained, not that your bonus goes down.

To me, treat it as untrained might mean that you lose your ranks in it, as it is treated as untrained, which is 0 skill ranks....

The language can be interpreted in two ways, apparently...


Even if we ignore the silliness that a bard who gets his information hanging out in bars knows more than the far more intelligent engineer we have the major problem that the interaction of these is quite undefined.

I've always treated the bardic ability as them treating the skill as if it were trained. Ie, they could exceed a DC 10.

RAW it applies to only untrained skills. If it is trained it doesn't apply.

Personally, I think that the lack of technologist feat SHOULD trump bardic knowledge. The whole purpose is to make tech mysterious. People who hang out in bars shouldn't automatically know stuff.

RAW I think the situation very unclear and good arguments could be made either way. Although I suspect my belief above may be influencing that :-(

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:

Back in the days of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D, .

I thought that I was running and playing Pathfinder and NOT 1st or second edition D&D. My mistake.

Changing the game in fairly fundamental ways really shouldn't be done in an obscure splat book together with a single developer comment buried in a thread.

If they want to do this they have to make it a LOT clearer. If it is still possible it should be in the guide. Absent that, at the very least in the FAQ.

That has always been my primary point (my secondary point is that I think this is a terrible idea for PFS although a great idea for home games).

Silver Crusade

Ssalarn wrote:
In 5e, you start out a bit more powerful so you know you're heroes,

I don't see why you think characters start out more powerful. 1st level characters (at least ones from the beginner box, I don't have the PHB) are less powerful than their pathfinder equivalents ( lower stats, less domain powers, etc).

Unless you start characters at level 3 which seems to be a very common practice.

Silver Crusade ****

David_Bross wrote:

People also hate it when they feel a particular NPC/monster is unfairly strong.

That I strongly agree with


You can simplify this and say that anytime the threat of PC death is real, players are unhappy about it,

I disagree with that. Waking Rune got 3 stars, Bonekeep got over 3.


So I guess the only way to write a good scenario is when there is no save or suck spells, no sense of urgency for the PCs actions, and no powerful melee combatants on the NPC side of things.

I think that this is seriously overstating things.

Silver Crusade ****

Andy Brown wrote:
it seems reasonable to me that any GM running a scenario that references stuff in it would at least have a read through the whole thing.

The Scenario (6.1) does NOT reference it

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:

DM Beckett, how do you adjudicate magus NPCs in scenarios?

There is a rather huge difference. The player plays a Magus, they bring the book, I look it up.

I run 6.1 without having read this thread. How exactly am I supposed to have a clue that I should disallow Knowledge checks?

There is absolutely no expectation that a GM will have read the Technology Guide.

As to RAW being clear I strongly disagree. There is an obscure rule in an obscure book that is NOT listed in the Scenario as being necessary. How the heck can it be clear that we're supposed to apply that rule? It is crystal clear that most GMs will NOT be applying it since they won't know about it.

Silver Crusade ****

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Some people feel they should be pre-prepared for every situation they can face as a Pathfinder, but frankly that is not what the PFS campaign is about. "Explore" is the prime directive of the Society, (along with "report, cooperate"). If you only go places where you already know everything about what you will face, you are not exploring. IMO PFS doesn't do enough of this, with its tiered scenarios which are designed for players to win.

In-game, think about it: how would you know anything about robots without having gone to Numeria and studied them (as represented by investment in a feat)? The only keepers of this knowledge keep it secret. It sounds a bit like player entitlement to expect a free pass into such knowledge that literally anyone can get with a single skill point.

For the players who have fun playing the game with some mystey, and are fine with not autosucceeding, this is a GREAT way to deal with this topic. Even moreso for players who weren't into the topic in the first place.

Clarification is obviously needed, since people seem willing to ignore rules or give people free stuff (which is illegal) rather than face the unknown. I fervently hope the clarification doesn't change the published rule, though.

As others have pointed out, my knowledge local checks tell me about the inns in continents I've never visited, my knowledge Arcana checks tell me about monsters that are completely unique, etc.

You're right. PFS doesn't do this. Why should it start now? Why should the introduction of a new book suddenly limit my Knowledge Engineering roll ? Note that technology was present before this book.

And the Technology rules are fairly well hidden in what is (at least currently) a fairly obscure splat book. We can absolutely presume that a very significant portion of the player/GM base won't even know that they exist.

I'm not sure if you are lumping me in with the "ignore rules" statement but, if so, I want to reiterate that at this point I honestly do NOT know what the RAW or RAI are. I honestly do not know if I should enforce or not enforce the Technology rules. And that is after reading John Comptons post.

Given that, I have NO choice but to make my own decision as to what to do.

Clarification is very definitely needed.

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, pauljathome, just checking: my ninja can use Disable Device on a robot, without the Technologist feat, at your table, but only if nobody else in the party has that feat? Why would I ever encourage another player to sit at the table with such a character? It would cripple my ninja!!

Feats usually make a PC better. In this case, it makes everybody else at the table worse!

I am definitely making the assumption that the Technologist Feat is quite rare, that very few people have taken it. If it turns out that many local people have taken the feat then I'll definitely change to enforcing the Technology Rules at all tables.

With that caveat, I admit to quite disliking my solution too. But I dislike the alternatives that I see even more.

If I enforce the technologist rules, then the probability is very high that nobody in the group will have the feat. I shut down most (or all) skill monkeys. I make the scenario at least somewhat harder. I lose any chance for the players to get the often interesting background information.

If I fail to enforce the technologist rules then I have made that feat and book purchased by the one player essentially absolutely useless.

At least with my solution the person who has the Feat gets SOME benefit and the lack of an obscure feat in an obscure splat book doesn't significantly change scenarios for the worse.

1 to 50 of 847 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.