|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Michael Brock wrote:
I understand that some people want to use all of the options.
Fixed that for you :-)
I know that Mike knows the following, I just though it was worth explicitly pointing out.
Many of us believe that Purple is exactly 100% wrong, that PFS has TOO MANY options, that far more should be disallowed.
Pleasing all of us is a literally impossible job. We want different and opposing things. Mike does an excellent job of trying to keep us all reasonably happy.
Aid another is not an acceptable use of a 7th level characters action. It is not contributing meaningfully to the fight.
I totally agree with your main point, but the pedant in me has to point out that aid another CAN be an effective contribution if you build for it. Handing out +8 is a lot different than handing out a +2 :-).
Michael Eshleman wrote:
I really, really, really do not want anything mythic leaking into the regular campaign (the little that has leaked is already too much IMO). Which means that the chronicle sheets would have to be very boring or I (and at least some others I know) would be unhappy. And I expect the really bland sheets that would make me happy would make many of the receivers unhappy.
probably more work and trouble than its worth.
Chris Mortika wrote:
The good news is they could figure out the value of an item.
The bad news is that the feline/human or canid/human value translation table hasn't been written. and items only have 2 values "MINE" or "useless"
Kinda depends on animal
Cat: "hmm. Makes me look pretty AND my person is looking at it. MINE"
N N 959 wrote:
. If you're looking for codified benefits from a 3 INT, you're not going to find them.
In addition to the benefits you've pointed out, there are some very major codified benefits
1) 3 extra tricks per point of Int
Getting to Int 3 is generally a VERY good idea
Tuna Slaad wrote:
Um, are you saying that we should never ask them to revisit their decisions, that we should never offer alternatives, that we should never state that we disagree with their decisions?
This thread consist of people, quite respectfully, asking them to change their ruling. I think that is a fine and good thing.
They're definitely competent professionals who have the best interest of the campaign at heart (the internet being what it is I'll explicitly point out that I am quite sincere when I say that). That doesn't mean that every decision they make is correct and most certainly does not mean that we should just quietly sit here if we see things differently than they do.
So what? How would they benefit?
Somebody decides to take what was originally a wizard and become a mystic Theurge. Who cares?
And do we really expect there to be a mad rush of this?
Chris Mortika wrote:
I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but your post is coming very close to saying "if you're not willing to play the way I do then its your problem"
Unlike some prestige classes, things like Mystic Theurge and Arcane Trickster have no in world presence. All they are to me is a set of abilities.
Heck, my Arcane Trickster wannabe was actually a Divine Trickster. He had cleric levels only.
I am now in the position where I can no longer build several characters in the direction I'd intended. Even with a rebuild they'll be less effective than they would have been if I built them for their new role.
RP wise, my Mystic Theurge wannabe really was a cleric/wizard, blending the two roles. She is so much a wizard/cleric that I'm very likely to NOT retrain her and just live with my suboptimal build (its not as if a suboptimal wizard sucks)
But surely you can understand why I'm now mildly irked that I can no longer play the character I intended to? I didn't want this particular "opportunity".
I believe that very liberal rebuilds should be offered more readily than they are. I really don't see the downsides of it. I don't care if somebody rebuilds their barbarian claiming that it was totally built around arcane strike.
But Mike et. al. disagree for what are, obviously, to them good reasons. Its their call to make.
But don't expect those of us negatively affected by the change to like it and to not be at least mildly irked. Please don't tell me its a challenge that I should relish.
Skald to bard and back should give Synergy
Do you happen to have a cite for that? I looked but couldn't find anything.
Excellent. Missed that.
I'm not sure if I'm looking forward to or scared of some of the characters this enables.
Well, time to go give Paizo some more of my money
I'm pretty sure the answer to the following is no, but thought I'd check.
Answer has to be PFS legal, unfortunately.
I have a second level Lotus Geisha bard that I'd like to retrain to a duettist (I am assuming Duettist will soon be legal and am planning ahead).
I am doing this for RP reasons and my end game absolutely HAS to be a Duettist bard. I don't care whether or not this is a suboptimal choice.
Unfortunately, to retrain an archetype is so expensive that I can't afford it. Unless one of the following is legal my best, slightly absurd but acceptable, option is to retrain those levels into oracle/sorcerer and then retrain them back into a Duettist bard
Can I do either of the following:
Retrain a bard archetype to a different bard archetype by using the retrain a class rules? Ideally with a class having synergy with itself? Obviously I'd have to retrain both levels simultaneously.
Get class synergy when retraining a bard into a skald and then a skald into a bard ? Seems a little less contrived than the oracle/sorcerer route.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
Allow rebuilds more freely.
In this particular case, I'd allow something like one rebuild per campaign, that must be taken the first time the character gains a chronicle on 2/19 or later.
Sure, that allows a little abuse but it seems a good compromise.
I had misinterpreted you as saying that you'd accept almost all creative solutions. It sounds like our positions are actually quite close.
As to why the penalty, the numbers are on different scales. Acrobatics will generally be significantly higher than CMB. I though I was giving the player enough of an advantage for creativity in basically allowing him to get through the entire room so I didn't also want to make it easy. It also felt difficult.
In my experience, players are happy with highish DCs for difficult things. They feel more excited when they succeed, and they LOVE it when their character blows through the difficult DC because they were optimized that way.
If it had been presented to me in those terms I might well have allowed it. But I wasn't going to let the cat talk :-)
Because some players are either totally off the wall or push things way too hard.
Its not about keeping things challenging. Its about keeping things fair.
I was typing up some examples and I realized that they arguably fall into the second category (Pathfinder has rules).
Pathfinder has a quite flexible skill question. Many of the creative solutions players come up with can be best handled by applying a skill (the CRB even recommends this). So, my answer to a great many creative solutions is to ask the player what skill he thinks appropriate and then make my best determination as to skill and DC, inform the player, and if they still wish to proceed have the player roll the dice.
So, I've let characters swing from chandeliers into the bad guy to knock him prone. Acrobatic check at a minus instead of a CMB check. I'm not going to let that auto succeed no matter how "cool" it is.
With that caveat, I'll give a couple of examples I've rejected:
"A player wanted their cat familiar to talk to the lion and convince it to turn on its owner. Without their cat having speak to animals of its own kind"
"Above chandelier example but character had no acrobatics skill and was wearing heavy armor".
Examples of things I've allowed without a roll :
Actually, I allowed exactly that solution when I GMed that scenario (assuming we're thinking of the same one).
I want to remake a weird Character idea that was pretty fun but everyone called evil but I disagree.
There is a fair bit of fiction revolving around characters (often vampires or other supernatural types) who HAVE to kill but choose to target socially acceptable victims, confine themselves to animals, etc.
I even played what was basically a vampire in a D&D like game. That game didn't have alignments but the character certainly saw herself as a mostly good person and I think her companions would have agreed
So I don't think this character type is necessarily evil.
That said, PFS is a poor venue for exploring such a character. It can be done but only by really toning down the blood lust and probably by keeping the back story quite secret.
I agree in principle and try to reward creativity wherever possible but it isn't that simple.
The main problem arises when the GM and the player see the creative solution differently. Players A solution may seem hackneyed or totally over the top to GM B. The GM can't accept ALL solutions.
The other problem comes when the player comes up with a creative example that is actually covered by the rules. A classic example that I've seen in play is the "throw sand in the eyes" trick. That is pretty clearly a dirty trick maneuver in Pathfinder. So, when the creative player tries this I pretty much have to explain to them that this is covered by the rules and their character can try but its likely a poorish idea.
You are now, for the first time in this discussion, seriously annoying me.
I take the word of the Creative Director, the man who literally is in charge of what is and is not official lore, that it is very widely accepted that Razmir is not a God and you insult me.
And you fail to accept even the possibility that the situation isn't clear cut.
David Bowles wrote:
I still don't see how running CORE is any different than running regular mode, since they aren't changing the scenarios. I'll run it, but I don't see why I'd ever play it. I looking forward to the TPKs in season 4+, personally. I'm not giving people a "CORE break" on enemy tactics. All hail the King of Storval Stairs.
Well, if you play hard mode then you really can't complain when the players play hard mode back and half the table are druids with Animal Companions.
Personally, I think the GMs should run Core a little easier. Not play softball, but at least don't play hardball.
You are stating lots of opinions as if they are fact.
Forgive me if I trust James Jacobs opinion a lot more than yours. On matters like this his opinion IS, essentially, fact.
Clearly some knowledge check or other is enough for a character to know. Expect extreme table variation on which knowledge and how high the DC. But that variation is (or should be) up to the GM, not you.
According to James Jacobs that isn't true. In fact, IIRC he used exactly the Scientology analogy. Pretty much everybody thinks it is a scam.
But therein lies one of the problems. Tables and players are going to vary in how obvious it is that Razmir is a fraud and it is the GM who decides, not you.
But may I recommend ghost sound in future? Raspberries, cheers, trumpet fanfares, etc are all a cantrip away :-)
First, you're conflating me with others. While I admit to having some intellectual curiosity as to how you pulled it off I've never said that you should tell me. I'm not talking about your use of unusual mechanics.
Second, part of the GMs responsibility is to tell me what the character perceives of the world. I shouldn't have to ask questions.
I've already explained why I care about you lying to me when you "detect evil".
Most of the time I don't really care if you lie about your race. But it does slightly irk me when I find out that I wasn't informed of something that my character would know as it interferes with my immersion in the world. And, as others have pointed out, on rare occasions it can cause me to waste resources.
It also slightly bugs me that you're not letting me in the joke. Feels selfish and mean spirited of you. You're having fun by fooling me. Amazingly, I don't necessarily like that. Assuming, of course, that I find out :-)
I think that you're now being inconsistent. When you play your "cleric of Razmir" I'm supposed to treat you like a cleric who can heal and stuff.
But when you play your "paladin of Razmir" I'm supposed to know to ignore your "detect evils". At least some of the time.
How am I supposed to know the difference?
And what about when I'm playing a character who does NOT have the knowledge about Razmir that I do? Is he expected to be deceived? Or am I expected to metagame?
I get the impression that you're actually significantly overstating things here and, at the table, I'd find things less objectionable or be completely OK with it.
But I stand by my main point. Unless you're very careful, delusional characters that the players don't know about can cause problems and there is the strong possibility that some of your fun is coming at the expense of other people's fun
RAW I get a check when interacting with you. Your mask (unless its some magical item I'm unaware of) may (emphasis on may) provide a small circumstance bonus.
Not sure what level you're at, but +18 really isn't that impressive. I've seen level 1 characters with a +17 perception.
In my experience, when a player is keeping secrets it is very often more effective than it should be because the rules aren't being followed. Either the GM is helping or the player is making incorrect assumptions or liberal rules interpretations.
Here I think you're going too far.
If I'm sitting at a table and I hear a player say "I detect magic (or evil, or poison, or whatever)" and the GM (who is presumably in on the joke) says "you detect nothing" then you've essentially given my character false information and robbed me of the chance to get that information (I'm not going to waste table time verifying what you've been told).
I play some delusional characters (one of my clerics is convinced he knows EVERYTHING about the undead but he has no knowledge religion) but I tell the players up front to ignore some of what they say.
You're not being a jerk but you ARE potentially breaking the rules. Its a disguise check to appear as a different race. It is quite possible that my character would notice something. I imagine you've got your disguise quite high but my perception may also be rather high.
And clearly the GM HAS to know. And GMs being the overworked harried individuals they are telling them at the beginning of the session may not be sufficient.
Your secrets may not be as safe as you think they are.
Nok Gaan wrote:
I absolutely agree. When SKR asked his "Teach by questioning" as referenced above my answer was "Well, it is OBVIOUSLY significantly less powerful and hence only a 1st level spell". I found that particular rhetorical style particularly grating in this case.
But his meaning was crystal clear. Until the PTB reverse themselves the rules are what they are.
By that definition, I agree that healers aren't viable.
Needless to say, I find that definition absurd. I don't have to stop ALL damage, just enough damage so my side can defeat the other side
Fair enough. I've seen and played clerics who almost never cast condition removal spells in battle because they are so combat focussed (conceptually, they're basically warpriests).
At level 9+ breath of life alone makes a cleric extremely viable. Sure, a combat cleric can have one as well but the healing cleric probably has at least 1 more memorized or available.
At level 7 or 8 6d6 isn't to be sneezed at, especially against enemy AoEs. Its not just the front liners that you are keeping up.
I agree that the cure x wounds spell aren't great but even those sometimes save lives
Given that core lacks most early entry tricks I don't expect to see any eldritch knights, arcane tricksters or mystic theurges as they are painful to play without them.
There are still some early entry tricks.
My planned mystic theurge will be wizard 3/cleric 1 when he goes in. So I essentially lose just 1 level as a wizard and some MAD which is a quite acceptable trade off (probably both ways as I expect this to be neither stronger OR weaker).
So, you don't like my definition. You claim core healers aren't viable. What is your definition of viable?
I can't help notice that all the people defending dedicated healers are basing their claims on multilevel experience but nobody saying they aren't viable are actually supporting their position with evidence.
Also please note that a healer does a LOT more than just heal hit points. Condition removal is also an important part of their job.
The addiction rules are rather harsh.
Details aside, a high level wizard who gets to pick the terms of engagement is almost certain to kill just about any character (including the same wizard). There is NO vaguely reliable way to protect against a high level wizard who wants you dead and picks the timing of the battle.
Either kill his character first (invent some "in character" reason), expect to die, leave the campaign, or convince the GM/other player that this isn't the game you want to play.
This is flat out false. You can build a quite viable Core only healer.
My definition of viable : not one character has died on my watch ( character currently level 10). Admittedly had the non core channeled revival feat to cover level 7 through 8.
On another note, one reason that rogues, monks, etc become more viable is likely to be that Core scenarios will be easier due to a combination of picking earlier scenarios and GMs playing a little less hard ball
Jeff Merola wrote:
If you build your swashbuckler with a good AC the parry is even less effective since the opponent has to roll over your AC to hit.
It is probably best for the high strength swashbuckler (as always, the best way to build a "Dex based" class in pathfinder is to max out Str and treat Dex as a secondary or even tertiary stat).
It is very useful against touch attacks, mind.
That's not what the guide says. Goal : loyalty to the Decemvirate above All.
As written, it us NOT at all the default faction.
Velarrio Ileor the Faceless wrote:
It was a PFS session. The Paladin was unable to object because of a very important fact that made it legal.
When I sit down to a table with my paladin I tell everybody (in and out of character) that I do NOT want infernal healing, even to save my life.
I'd be seriously peeved (in and out of character) if that request was ignored. I'd be upset at the GM for allowing what I consider a jerk move and PVP.
It is NOT cute and amusing. Please don't do it
I disagree that "don't commit an evil act" constitutes the entire "ironclad laws of morality" that they follow.
As I say, I believe a paladin is held to a higher standard. The part of the code in the rules text really does NOT hold them to a higher ethical standard. The flavor text is part if what defines a paladin as more than just a LG person
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
I'd have a major problem with that. Lawful characters do NOT get to take the law into their own hands except under the most extreme of circumstances. In fact, I'd ding him on alignment if he did that. In general, of course, as always circumstances matter
I won't speak for others, but I have always believed the flavor text is also very important in understanding paladins. And I'd claim that a character who is "to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline." would not throw an evil spell.
I'd also say that if 99% of good characters wouldn't do it for ethical reasons then a paladin CAN'T do it.
Walter Helgason wrote:
I don't have problems with the Pathfinder part, but sometimes it's hard to figure out a faction motivation.
Yup. I generally found it easier with the old factions. After all, everybody comes from somewhere and making your character at least somewhat patriotic is usually pretty easy.
I miss the Shadow Lodge. It was always my default for characters that didn't fit other factions. Grand Lodge doesn't fit that bill well for me since too many of my characters don't trust the Decemvirate very much.
Paladins are held to higher standards.
This thread is proof positive of my previous point :
Expect major table variation.
I'm pretty sure that we won't convince Jiggy and I'm pretty sure he won't convince me (I could be wrong on that, mind). Nobody is "wrong" on this. Its just that opinions on alignment, paladins, and what a PFS judge should do wrt alignment differ wildly.
So I have a paladin 2 sorcerer 2 from what I have got from this thread is that so long as I use the wand of infernal healing to heal a team mate I stay paladin, however if I use it to wake up BBEG and my team mates begin to "torture" him I then have to atone or have I missed the point somewhere along the line? Thank you for your time
Expect extreme table variation.
I'm in the camp that wouldn't allow a paladin to do this. GMs that I respect would have no problem with it.
But keep in mind your GM IS right at their table. They have the responsibility of deciding. You get to make your case but THEY decide. And you then have to accept their ruling graciously. If you can't live with that don't do it
Blasting/buffing/battle field control/debuffing all work very well to make a cooperative wizard
And then do NOT hyperoptimize. Do NOT take dazing for your blaster, do NOT dip a level of sorcerer, etc.
At low levels, reliable ways to spam magic missile can make you quite useful (especially when you hold your action to disrupt the enemy spell caster).
Or, since you're not hyper optimizing, spend some resources on other ways to contribute. Take a couple of levels of empiricist investigator and be an insane skill monkey as well.