|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The phrase is "weapons or tools". To me a shield pretty clearly falls under that definition. It would be more than a lot silly to allow an ape to use a shield but to NOT let it use a fishing stick.
I wouldn't allow it at a PFS table. Which means that, at the very least, you can expect significant table variance.
Roleplay interesting characters who interact with my NPCs and the world as their characters would. If you let my NPCs talk a bunch I'll have fun.
Come up with truly unusual tactics which make me think about how to handle things. Unusual is NOT "take advantage of some rules loophole" but more thinking outside the box.
Have fun. Fun is contagious. If you're visibly enjoying yourself I likely will too
It varies somewhat by convention, but in general
1) every GM at a convention gets a boon
Don't constantly rules lawyer, ESPECIALLY when it really isn't important. The GM needs to be given at least a little slack in their interpretation. Assume that he is trying to make the game better for you.
On a related note, if the GM makes a ruling that you believe to be incorrect, politely raise your objection and then accept the GMs ruling.
Please don't bring in a wildly overpowered character. Or, if you feel that you must do so, please underplay that character until necessary. Let the GM do at least a bit of damage to you and the party :-).
Keep your head in the game. Pay attention to what is happening, be ready when it is your turn, minimize extraneous conversation, etc.
It also depends a lot on what you mean by "cold". Like most GMs I've played and/or GMed a very large number of scenarios. Even if I've forgotten the details running one that I've run before is a long way from "cold".
And, of course, some scenarios can be run cold much easier than others.
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I don't really think a refund is fair.
While I understand your position that seems unduly harsh to me. You're essentially punishing a player for lack of experience and knowledge.
He has ALREADY paid a price in that he was without better equipment for some scenarios. Making him continue to pay that price seems unfair.
I pretty much agree with trollbill.
For example, it is considered nearly universally acceptable to turn away a player with a proven history of being disruptive, cheating, etc.
It is nearly universally considered very bad behaviour to turn away a player because he is playing a <insert class the GM doesn't like>.
The case of a player who refuses to tone down their over powerful character and ruins the fun for everybody else lies somewhere in between.
Other reasons vary greatly by the group, individuals involved, etc.
You seem to be using circular reasoning. Murder == "always evil" implies "There is objective reality because murder is always evil".
If by "objective evil" you mean "some external standard of evil that we do not understand or know anything about" then
If by "objective evil" you mean "universally or nearly universally accepted as evil" then there really isn't such a thing. There are cultures (historical and current) that accept what the vast majority of people reading this would consider to be rape, murder and pedophilia as not being evil.
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
That isn't correct.
Players can expend limited resources in earlier encounters thus making a later encounter harder. Or they could gain various negative conditions. Those are the most obvious ways that order of encounter s can matter but there are many other possibilities.
To be completely logical, there is no such thing as good and evil. They are false philosophical human constructs that have no place in the universe other than what mortals conjure from their imagination. The universe does not know good or evil, it only knows existence and non-existence. Logical fact.
To assert the non existance of something is most definitely NOT "completely logical".
Even if they are philosophical human constructs, that doesn't make them false nor does it mean that they have no place in the universe.
It is interesting that you think it a logical fact that universe knows things.
Note - The above is mostly my being pedantic. You'd be best to NOT assume that I hold any particular beliefs based upon it.
I'm going to start with two caveats.
1)Real world morality is far more complicated than Dnd and this makes all the real world questions essentially meaningless. Following answers are for campaign world only
2) The answer varies a lot by campaign, by player and by character. Following are the answers for most of my characters
Game world - Some correlation.
Game World - varies immensely by campaign.
Game World - With rare exceptions yes.
In theory, no.
Absolutely it does. Look at any discussion of alignment on the net and it is very clear that real world player morality affects what is seen as good, evil, etc.
Game World - It depends on the act, the reason for the act, the repentance after the act and the particular campaign. In general, a single act will not make one evil.
It does not relate to real life in any way since morality in the real world is far more complicated
From the comments on the product page, it seems like there are many parts of the book that leave much to the interpretation of the GM. While this is absolutely the right way to go with a book of optional rules it would be highly problematic in PFS.
The variant multiclassing rules sound interesting but there are almost guaranteed to be significant balance issues (the combinations are so numerous that they can't possibly have all been play tested).
My guess is that the classes will be made legal and almost all of the rest of the book won't be. If the variant multiclassing is allowed I suspect the power creep will be quite significant over the next couple of months as new combinations are discovered.
I can't see the new summoner really coexisting with the old one. No idea how they'll handle that. I think the fairest solution would be to grandfather the old one but require new characters to use the new one.
This issue came up today in PFS. I'm interested in the RAW answer.
I'm not talking about the interaction of light and darkness spells, just asking about basic light from a sunrod (so, 30 ft bright light).
In the following example, how far would the light go? How far would the person P standing at the corner be able to see down the corridor? Would low light vision change that answer?
X - corridor
Thank you. I missed that one.
Michael Brock wrote:
Totally understood but man I REALLY wish these had been out a few weeks ago when I played Slave Masters Mirror (my character would have qualified for 4 of the 6 conditions) :-)
These look excellent. Lots of flavor, boons are useful, best of all the boon benefits the entire party. Suddenly all my characters will feel part of a faction again.
Congratulations on this, you have surpassed yourselves
Am I the only one who thinks that this is likely to lead to a LOT of power creep?
Sure, beefing up the ftr is no huge deal. But do druids really need to be able to rage? Do wizards and clerics need more options?
ACG made it very clear that what Paizo considers balanced is very different from what I considered balanced (I think there's a lot of power creep in that book).
At the moment I'm hoping that little of this is made PFS legal. But I expect that the new classes, feats, multiclassing, etc will be legal. And the power level will be ratched up at least a couple more notches.
I've run about 3 Core scenarios and played 1 module, 3 levels of Emerald Spire and 6 odd scenarios. The highest level thing I've played or run was subtier 4-5
I'm finding Core distinctly harder (both as a GM and a player). Its certainly still winnable but its harder. One death so far but that was partly aggressive play and largely bad luck (crit rolling above average against a favoured enemy). The subtier 4-5 could have been a TPK but the GM was softballing a little. One scenario I ran would have been a TPK but I softballed a little.
Core is definitely starting to cause better play to occur in general. People are actually caring about tactics. Poor tactics can doom you.
There is definitely less room for mismatched parties, parties playing up, characters who don't pull their weight, players who don't pull their weight, etc. One or more problems here can really be a problem.
Going through a LOT more expendables. Especially CLW charges.
Almost all of the Core that I've experienced has been with experienced players, not new players. With that group, I like the effect.
But I expect lots of later season higher level scenarios will be quite deadly, especially with a GM who doesn't like to pull punches.
I'm not sure a 4th level barbarian is much more dangerous than a first level barbarian to a L1 or 2 :-).
Joking aside, you're right. Hence my "might" above :-)
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I might allow a level 4 pregen with 3 level 1s and 2s but only if ALL the players voted for it in a secret ballot. Even then, it would depend on the scenario. It would be more likely the more difficult the scenario.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Sorry, but making an emphatic statement does NOT change the fact that the sentence is ambiguous. English is a context sensitive language and a great many constructs are inherently ambiguous.
I suspect that we could find grammar guides that would state the sentence unambiguously meant one alternative or the other. They'd be wrong. It is ambiguous.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Which does open up one rather interesting issue. Those tactics largely rely on player ability. Having a smokestick to eliminate sneak attacks is pretty darn advanced (very well done, mind :-) ). Not all experienced players are that good and fairly few beginner players (one of the main targets for CORE) are.
If CORE requires good tactics and good item selection then it IS substantially harder.
Which is arguably a very good thing, mind.
Andrew Christian wrote:
No class, prestige class, or class feature dependent ability score was altered.
The wording in the guide is unclear.
"If a class, prestige class or class feature-dependent ability score is altered" can legitimately be parsed as "if a class is altered" or as "if a class feature-dependent ability score is altered". English is ambiguous that way.
The former makes more sense to me and so I think a rebuild is allowed.
I think we'd all agree that changing a wizard so that they threw cleric spells instead should allow a rebuild. With my interpretation of the above, that is guide approved. With yours, it is not.
Partly. But even the strong classes have lost lots of options. No Create Pit, snowball, Saurian Shamans, Aasimars, etc etc etc etc.
And at least the rogue has SOME use now (trapfinder and disabler). But I agree that the stronger classes lose less than some of the weaker classes
Generally, expect things to be harder. You'll need to play smart and not rely on the bad guy going down before his initiative comes up.
Defenses become more important, healing becomes a little more important.
You have fewer options and the options you do have are often going to be somewhat more expensive (in gold, feat cost, higher level spell, etc).
Definitely you should be a lot more careful about playing up, you should strive harder for a balanced party, season 4 and some 5 scenarios with unbalanced parties of 5 may well turn out to be killers.
But the game is still very, very playable. A barbarian was always close to the most powerful melee character (certainly, more than powerful enough), wizards are still very verstatile power houses, etc.
This should be moved to the PFS board
I'd be very surprised if it was made legal in the Core PFS Campaign. And probably be rather appalled (I am guessing that the power level will be comparable to recent material and NOT to the CRB).
As to the Regular Campaign, who knows? My vague guess is that it will either be nearly 100% legal or nearly 100% illegal. No idea which.
Most GMs allow an Animal Companion to start fully trained.
The most important tricks are Attack (make sure you take this twice), Down, Defend. At least 1 of Come or Heel. If you're using Animal Archive Flank is great.
The biggest advantage of raising intelligence isn't just extra tricks learned its the opening up of feats. This can be awesome if you have a particular plan in mind or just "meh". I doubt I'd bother for a snake.
Ask the GM how he wants to handle initiative. Many just have the AC go on the characters initiative as it simplifies a lot.
Assuming that the character puts max ranks into handle animal, buys a masterwork tool, and is NOT abusive the handle animal rules ARE gross overkill. A lot of GMs have a house rule something like "Don't abuse the animal and I'm not going to make you roll all the time for things it is trained to do".
One place that GMs differ a lot is on what the animal can "naturally" do. Some GMs allow a cat to climb but not a horse. Some GMs allow a dog to naturally flank but not a tiger.
For the record, I won't be trashcanning either of my affected characters.
I suspect they'll both end up primarily single classed with a somewhat strange dip class "for flavour". They'll both be a bit weaker than they could have been (weaker than either their prestige class would have been as well as weaker than the single classed version of themselves would have been). But they'll be a little different (which is always fun) and still quite viable at most levels. I'll probably have to be a little careful about playing up with them
Andrew Christian wrote:
Since we're currently being pedantic that isn't actually true.
I have a Tengu rogue/brawler/cleric who was going for Arcane Trickster. He was planning on satisfying the arcane casting requirement via long nose which qualifies as Alter Self (note that while the entry requirements specify Arcane caster the class itself just gives you spell levels). He used a trait to get Mage Hand.
I refer to it as a divine trickster.
Given his Int and Cha are both 10 or less there really is no remotely viable way for him to get into Arcane Trickster.
Note : I'm not saying the character is now useless. Just saying that Arcane Trickster is no longer an option
A druid should NEVER become greatly underpowered. At worst, it becomes only normally powered.
My druids role changed significantly as she levelled up but she never came close to underpowered (she is L14 now). Just buffing the battle kitten (trivial if it is a big kitty, a bit harder for a small cat) makes for a reasonably powerful character
I just had a totally amicable discussion with a GM about the legality of my grandfathered Mystic Theurge character. The character had early access via the old SLA tricks (Aasimar together with Trickster domain in this particular case).
It occurred to me that was a trivial discussion today might be more difficult 6 months from now.
Is there any way of somehow archiving the old grandfathered state for posterity?
i know this will be pointless but I HAVE to vent.
The current interface for PFS is absurd. Its exceedingly complicated, it takes too long, and it is very error prone. With an error apparently causing Core characters to irrevocably become shifted to the regular campaign.
The instructions don't even mention what has changed with the Core Campaign. Some pointers and hints would be kind of nice.
So, first I have to add the scenario manually before reporting it (As opposed to just selecting it when I reported it like I used to do). Fine, I guess I can live with that. Be nice if the instructions told me this
Then, I start entering things. If I get ANYTHING wrong a rather subtle warning message tells me that it will convert everything to Core. That Error message should be a LOT clearer (at the least, it should be some kind of ask me twice box)
Whoever decided that was an appropriate action to automatically take was in error. Its intensely bad design.
So, I enter PFS IDs one by one. If one of them isn't core I get that subtle little warning messsage. I then cannot just delete that record or overwrite it. No, I have to completely leave the session and start again.
Or, at least, nothing else that I did caused the warning message to go away.
So, I enter things. And, despite everything being correct, as far as I can see, nothing makes the warning message "Prestige does not count. Missing character number" go away. Its populated the fields correctly but still wants to warn me.
So, I post. Kinda looks like it worked. Except there is a message that I've already run the scenario. Which I did, in non Core mode of course.
I really hope that things improve. You've turned what used to be an unpleasant time consuming chore into something much, much, much worse.
I just noticed that a chronicle sheet has the wrong price for a partially charged wand.
It lists the price of a CL3 wand with 9 charges as 135 gold.
David Higaki wrote:
I don't understand the distinction you're making.
How is it not a change to say that SLA no longer satisfy the requirement?
Kinada why i do not play PFS anymore - if you truly play you character you gonna screw other people from their fame points. Its too "competitive" in that regard.
It really isn't. You just have to create a character who has a built in reason to be a Pathfinder, a character for whom cooperation is quite important.
With that in place the issues are generally extremely minor,
But not all character concepts make good Pathfinders.
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
As I said, and obviously only speaking for myself, I'd have been as happy with the rebuild option for my existing Mystic Theurge as I am with the grandfathering.
And my wannabes don't get anything either way so they don't care.
Mark Stratton wrote:
They've changed what the default effect of this change would be but I don't think that it is at all accurate to say that they've "Gone beyond it".
The Guide to Organized play wrote:
Now, admittedly its not clear how to parse that but I THINK that it is saying that the default expected action would be to allow a rebuild. Certainly for characters who are in the Prestige Class, arguably for all characters aiming for the prestige class (that quote is exceedingly unclear wrt who gets the rebuild)
I'm honestly not sure if I'd prefer a full rebuild on my existing Mystic Theurge as opposed to grandfathering it. I certainly wouldn't complain if I got the rebuild instead of the grandfathering.
And I think a fairly good argument could be made that the guide says that I should be able to rebuild my Mystic Theurge wannabe. If you accept that, then I'm being offered LESS than promised, not more.
Dervish Dance is one obvious route. And one of the innumerable Dervish archetypes (Dawnflower Dervish Bard being my personal favourite).
You might want to play the Dragon's Demand module for access to a cool (but not at all overpowered) item.
Especially as a follower of Shelyn you can get your day job Perform Dance up to pretty much absurd levels if you so choose (trait for +4, Deific Obedience, Skill Focus, magic item)
There are some bardic masterpieces based of Dance. And of course having an absurd acrobatics score (from Versatile Performance) can be quite useful
Winks Blastum wrote:
As a level 7 PC Johns proposal would make your tiger still quite legal.
The problem is only really bad at the lower levels
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Good luck to the people who had their character planning negatively effected by this, hopefully you can find a proposal that can solve the issues that some of us see with the current option and be able to find a way that limits the chance of abuse.
Unfortunately, the disconnect is that I (and I think a great many others) just don't see any appreciable chance of significant abuse in some of the extant proposals.
Which makes it essentially impossible to come up with better proposals.
Note, I am NOT saying that you and others are being silly or alarmist or unfeeling or anything of that sort. I just honestly don't understand your position. Which means I can't try and change it.
Which is why I wish (wish, NOT demand or expect) Mike would speak up. Even though I recognize why he doesn't and admit that I wouldn't either if I was in his position :-). But absent input from him there is next to 0 chance of changing his mind