I think I should have been clearer. I think that you are genuinely showing some things are brokenly good and that is a very valuable thing to do. But I think you,very already shown that.
Absolutely agreed. I think you've proven that ability is very abusable.
Which is interesting. But its time to move on and test something else.
Missed that. Yeah, broken. Now, again, its time to move on.
The only question of interest has to be how this fares relative to a wizard or sorcerer. We're not play testing 2nd edition, showing how powerful spellcasters can be accomplishes NOTHING.
Your character is heavily relying on a few tricks
1) extended casting of spells the day before. Not legal in PFS and I suspect a great many GMs would shut it down rapidly.
2) you're using dimensional slide without provoking. Not at all clear to me that it works that way. But I thin that it s overpowered even if it provokes.
3) using the combination of fly, invisibility and summon to push an "I win" button. Legal, sure. But wizards and sorcerers can do the same boring thing too. Not sure that is proving much beyond "wizards and sorcerers rock at level 11"
Just forthe record, just in case there are people looking at downerbeautiful's post and thinking, "It can't be that bad." Yes, yes it was. I was playing in that scenario, and the players in question were mercilessly haranguing the VC, Torch, and a random sage that was under Torch's employ. It just wasn't fun sitting at the table, the other PC's ruined it for me. As a player, is there something I can do when this situation arises?
In my experience a simple "uh, guys, could you please tone it down" often works wonders. The other players hopefully didn't realize they'd gone over the top.
To the OP - you've interpreted this as lack of respect to the GM. Hopefully it was NOT that but was lack of respect to the NPC. And the solution to that is to have the NPC react appropriately. I've had NPC's leave and not give out key information. If things got really egregious (and after at least one less than subtle warning) I'd have the mission fail.
But if you're right and it was the GM and other players they weren't respecting then the only real recourse s to invoke the "don't be a jerk" rules.
I quite agree, but unfortunately the Dev comments on the blog make it sound like they don't. I expect minor tweaks at best. Hope that I'm wrong.
When they're not sure whether or not they need to give weapon finesse at level 1 there is a serious disconnect between what the Devs are thinking and what most people on this thread seem to be thinking.
It goes against the various guides but I like to play a somewhat balanced druid. Admittedly she is played in PFS where versatility is very valuable but even in a normal campaign there is a lot to be said for versatility.
So I'd be very tempted to have STR and WIS both be at least 14 before racial modifiers, con at least 12, other stats to taste. Add in some combat capable animal companion and you'll be very effective in a great many situations.
If you're playing a caster druid a very attractive option is to take one if the domains that gives you an animal companion at 4th. With boon companion you then get spells AND an animal companion,
To a quite limited extent I can see the other patrons point. All of the example characters you mention are going to do very well in the APs they are designed for. This does raise the possibility of making the group a little unbalanced or powerful. For example, I might not allow Gillmen as PCs for Skull and Shackles.
That said, of course characters should be designed with the campaign in mind. A properly played paladin would quit Skull And Shackles or fall. Nobody should be forced into making that decision.
Speaking for myself, I like to very much roleplay the worship of the God for the cleric. So, picking the right God is at least as important as the mechanics.
Mechanically, clerics can be incredibly versatile. Buffers, martial, bad touch, debuffers are all quite possible.
My current PFS cleric is a dwarven cleric of Cayden and lots of fun to play. Mechanically he has a level of barbarian and decent strength. This lets him play almost like a fighter a lot of the time ( a fighter with a move of 50 ft, mind :-) ) with the spells and channels being almost afterthoughts (he rarely bothers to buff in combat).
I think a lot of the dex to damage argument is missing the point. As are the developers.
It already exists. That boat has sailed.
The class HAS to be constructed with the idea that Dervish Dance, Piranha Strike, and agile weapons exist and WILL be used. Make whatever trade offs you want but make them with the sure and certain knowledge that the Dec based swashbukler WILL be adding Dex to damage and they have the option of going with quite a low strength.,
I've brought several into an ongoing campaign. Sometimes they can be dropped in trivially (usually just changing the hook), sometimes they take more surgery.
The time to run a scenario can depend a lot on your groups style. Some are actually fairly open ended and can easily take a lot longer than the 4 or so hours they are designed to take in PFS. Some will, once striped if the PFS specific faction stuff, take less time
Dimensional slide makes ths an excellent dip class for mobile fighter types (Magus being a good option, eldritch knight another).
Especially if it opens up the dimensional agility chain ( it doesn't now of course, but that is the kind of thing that often gets changed by a get, magic item, FAQ, etc)
Like many people I love the class and will be playtesting it. But it definitely needs to have some exploits toned down.
A very strong argument can be made that a paladin would not consider that law to be valid. Its outlawing their God. How can that be legitimate? How could any mortal authority possibly have the right to do that? How can their God mind if they violate such a law?
That was certainly how my Lawful cleric of Abadar felt when he went into Rahadoum in a different scenario.
A different thread made me realize how to build a fairly effective swashbuckler.
Take a level of lore oracle with the sidestep secret. You can now pretty much dump Dex and go str based. Mix with paladin to taste.
It seems pretty wrong that the best swashbucklers I've seen so far either dip a level of Dawnflower dervish or oracle. Swashbucklers need a way to add dex to damage. Preferably quite early.
As written, I'd pretty much never play a swashbuckler before level 3. That works in PFS (GM credit) but really "might" not be what Paizo is looking for.
A class doesn't have to rock at early levels but it has to be playable. And a Dex based swashbuckler really isn't. Poor AC, damage, hit pts (due to its MAD its con will be a bit low).
One of my biggest problems with the class is that a very limited resource (panache) frequently has to be spent BEFORE the roll is made. This is especially frustrating with parry.
Panache doesn't scale with level so even a character with 16 charisma is only going to have at most 3 panache available. Even if we assume you get back 1 per battle that makes it very limited. And buying a 16 charisma is pretty painful.
I ran a very limited playtest. In 2 encounters (level 3 swashbuckler) parry was never useful. It was either wasted on a blow that missed anyways or it was wasted on a blow that rolled so high that it hit anyways.
It also is unclear how parry interacts with a critical. If you beat the confirmation roll do you turn it from a critical into a normal hit?
As it stands, parry us insanely less useful than Crane Style.
While I'd never auto fail for wearing a mosd, I'd most certainly auto fail people for some things. The example of somebody spitting in a drink while making a diplomacy check above is a good one.
As an aside, I let the players describe their actions and tell me what they're saying but it is I who decide if they roll against diplomacy, bluff or intimidate (I'll let them change their actions if the don't like my interpretation).
And yeah, I've forbidden PCs from taking some weapons and some armours into some buildings.
Circumstances and player decisions matter. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes they completely dominate
Pete Pollard wrote:
The point when the powers that be tell me that I am not allowed to apply circumstance modifiers (negative and positive) for things not explicitly mentioned in a scenario is the point where I will face the choice of consciously cheating and only playing with GMs who cheat or quitting PFS.
Fortunately, paizo is far too intelligent to ever say such a thing.
Spend 5gp each. You really shouldn't have to but 2.5 gold is cheap to avoid the arguments.
Most GMs will allow them to remain sanctified. Some will require you to re sanctify. Some of the latter will probably allow some creative solution like a CLW spell, others will insist on a channel. Some will likely allow you to buy a channel, some won't.
In other words, expect some table variance. But it should work at most tables.
Make sure to tell the GM before the game. And have the rules ready. Thus is NOT something to spring mid session
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
My use of situational bonuses and penalties and my dislike of the mask are two separate factors, and they do not interact.
For what its worth, I've played with Adam a lot and he really does do a very good job of not letting his personal opinions influence his duty as a PFS GM.
As far as I know, nobody locally has complained that he significantly over does situational modifiers.
I absolutely apply appropriate modifiers for all sorts of things in all sorts of circumstances.
I've even basically flat out forbidden some things in some appropriate circumstances. Wouldn't allow a wolf in the opera, wouldn't allow spiked armour at a wedding reception.
And absolutely I'd apply appropriate modifiers to somebody with a face of stone and a robotic voice.
Blistering invective is amusing as heck and also actually useful.
Glibness is positively broken. So broken that many GMs will nerf it.
You should also consider some masterpieces. Triple time is very cheap and effective. Pageant of the Peacock us so incredibly overpowered that any sane GM will nerf it :-)
I'm finding it hard to think of ANY class that couldn't work :-) You'd need to spam UMD a bit and some classes (e.g all cavalier) would obviously only really work well in some campaigns but in the right campaign just about any class could make a great group.
Some such groups would have a very different approach to problems, mind. And would fail dramatically if the GM hosed that. Eg an all rogue group relies on the GM allowing them to achieve surprise a lot.
I personally wouldn't allow that as a GM unless the animal companion had bought up its Int score. Animals really can't count.
There is a lot of GM variation on what an animal can do. Personally, as long as it seems reasonable to me for an animal of that particular type AND the animal as the appropriate tricks trained then I allow it. But if the player starts to abuse things then I start to push back and require far more handle animal rolls. Yeah, a lot of that is subjective. A lion is NOT a bear and they'll sometimes react differently.
Note that Animal Archive has a lot more tricks. This is a two edged sword. Many new things can be done some old things now require a trained trick.
Rebis Ouroboros wrote:
Have you looked at the new Juju Oracle in Faiths and Philosophies? Seems pretty close to me (perhaps with a bit of reflavouring)
Sean C. Macdonald wrote:
He probably can't expand much since at least one of his players reads these boards :-)
Every character is getting links into the story. Some seriously strange stuff is happening with at least 2 PCs. I can't really be clearer than that since its not at all clear to either the player or character what is going on. Its pretty clear that the players knew more than do I but it very much clear that they don't know everything. The changes are both mechanical and story related.
So far at least my character hasn't been affected mechanically. But she ( a Jadwega winter witch born in Irrisen but raised in Taldor) is central to a prophecy involving the Queens of Irrisen. Which has either affected the story or at least changed how we view it.
We're still basically on a railroad but none of us care :-)
Its quite powerful. My GM and I decided that it was too powerful so neither of us make it (reign of winter so lots of bad guy witches too).
Yeah, this makes my character less powerful than a wizard. So what? EVERYTHING is less powerful than a wizard :-). She still very much contributes to the success of the party and that is all that you need. And there are lots of hexes that are fun and effective without being overpowered.
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
In fairness, we also "wasted" a lot of time at the beginning with some fairly silly (and hence extremely entertaining) roleplaying :-)
I've got a weird proposal. Its what I force myself to do (I have 2 aasimar characters and refuse to play another one).
Open up some races but restrict the number of characters of that race that a player can EVER have. So, for example, cat folk are opened up for play but you can only ever have 1 cat folk character
Obviously this would require players being honest but that doesn't seem a major problem.
This would allow players to experiment without turning PFS into a complete freak show. And it would probably make those characters tend to be mire valued.
Its a first level spell that shuts down most ranged types.
I don't tend to memorize it but I usually have a scroll handy (often in my spring loaded wrist sheath).
I don't actually cast it that often since it tends to be a double edged sword but it has absolutely saved lives several times, especially in ambushes.
It can also act to (mostly) level the playing field when the opponent as deeper darkness, invisibility, etc. Now you're ALL hosed
I most certainly see your point of view and am always tempted to play a pregen for precisely those reasons but the fact is that I strongly prefer to play my own character. Losing a few consumables is no big deal. Even dying is no huge deal since I basically have too many characters anyway :-)
I'll join the "versatile character" bandwagon. I absolutely adore bards, to the point where I consciously have to stop myself building more.
My druid is also a lot of fun. Very versatile, lots of personality, and capable of pulling out some serious power when required while NOT dominating the table in general.
I also like the silliness of my dwarven cleric, especially when coupled with the looks of amazement on a GMs face as the dwarven cleric virtually teleports around the battlefield with his speed of 50
I slightly misspoke. I wasn't allowed to use the money was on the chronicle sheet for that session.
The character that was playing had essentially no wealth at the time. Which is just as well, actually. Losing significant amounts of wealth on a mission that you couldn't gain from would be unpleasant. As would feeling like a jerk for not contributing to the raise dead.
Unfortunately no. As stated, it could skew GM decisions.
Also, don't forget that a lot of time the GM isn't actually getting money (the more one GMs the less one worries about the chronicle sheets. I often rerun scenarios). So you'd get the weird situation of wanting your GM to be GMing it for the first time :-)
On a related note, a player who isn't playing for credit can't contribute either. That actually came up at a table I was playing at a few months ago.
The problem is that all of your questions are good ones but all we can really do is make suggestions on house rules to make it work.
I suggest people hit the FAQ button. Best chance to get developer feedback.
Its also a reasonably obscure power and isn't a great concern for most s don't hold your breath for an answer :-)
For what its worth, my personal opinions are:
60 ft range
Target always takes cold damage. If it makes save it is paralyzed and entombed, otherwise just fine. Anything can be entombed except things that cannot fail fort saves. Really doesn't make sense that a fort save stops you from being entombed but its magic and still quite powerful for a hex.
Immunity from cold doesn't protect you from being entombed.
Thirst doesn't affect you either. Oversight in RAW. RAI is you live
Target entombed in ice. Again, RAI seem clear to me and trump RAW
In PFS I've found it very valuable (especially below about L9 or so) to be very flexible in role. I very much like being good in melee and good with spells. Depending on the group she is with, my druid has sometimes been the tank, sometimes the support caster, sometimes the blaster, sometimes the healer, etc.
A 16/16 split works VERY well. Coupled with spreading the investments in feats, wealth, etc.
Obviously this means that you'll be a little less effective in either role but only a little less. Being much more effective in the other role more than compensates.
I would seriously consider taking the AC, though. It adds a lot of flexibilty to the character.
Uh, keep in mind that at least some of the Factions are actively (especially in earlier seasons) fighting to control or change the Society. My Silver Lodge characters want to use it for good.
That is really only slightly different than secretly working for the Asps Consortium.
Adam has it totally correct above. As long as it doesn't affect what happens at the table it doesn't matter what your characters motivations are. As a couple of other recent threads showed, a great many characters aren't particularly loyal to the Society.
And IF it affects what happens at the table then it isn't acceptable regardless of how true to character you're playing. Within limits, obviously (occasional intra party conflict and angst can be fun as long as it doesn't get out of hand)
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So, I'm assuming you've heard of this little RPG game called D&D 4e, right?
13th Age also aims to be more balanced than Pathfinder. For example, spell casters pretty soon cap out at numbers of sells they can cast, the 4 encounter per "day" is hardwired in etc. I haven't played it enough to have a really good feel for how balanced it s but it LOOKS fairly balanced.
Not to mention DndNext.
The basic track is to make spell chuckers less quadratic in power. As long as number, variety and power of spells ALL increase with level spellcasters and non spellcasters increase in power differently with level and the game can NOT be balanced across all levels
I think people should cut Eric a little slack.
Up here we have a good community. The experienced players GM, they are willing to play with whomever, etc.
But we still have some groups of players who tend to play together. They're friends, their play styles match, whatever. In fact, in some ways this becomes almost self fulfilling in that they will have played the same scenarios and so sometimes will HAVE to play the same scenario because they've played the others.
One such group is definitely composed of power gamers (I am NOT using that term insultingly)
It most certainly doesn't occur to the same extent as it seems to with Eric's group. But it seems to me to be fairly natural that this happens to at least some extent.
The fact that the local culture at Eric's store is different from the norm most certainly does NOT mean that he is incompetent or not a decent person.
That said, I think that it would be a good idea for Eric to try and slowly change his local culture to reduce how much this occurs for all the reasons expressed above. Cliques (real or perceived) make the game less attractive to newcomers and those newcomers are absolutely essential to the long term survival of any PFS group
I am still wildly ambivalent about faction missions going away. Some of them added a lot, some were very silly, most fell between those extremes.
One very, very clear effect that eliminating them has had is to significantly reduce the time required for a scenario. Again this is sometimes good and sometimes bad.
First, thank you very much for doing this.
One obvious observation is that this has to be balanced against the thunder caller bard. Which has its own FAQ requests :-)
My immediate gut reaction is that this is too weak. 10 odd damage at level 6 (even to multiple targets) is almost never going to be worth the action. And if its done at multiple targets the round cost will start to become quite high.
But its in the ballpark. Maybe it should start at 2d8?