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

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,125 posts. 18 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 40 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ****

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.

Silver Crusade ****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If you have a table of level 1s or 2s, common sense says you don't allow a level 4 pregen to play at that table.

No, it doesn't. If I want to allow a 4th level pregen in a party of 1s, I do. I've done it with regular PCs, I see no reason not to allow a pregen the same way.

Common sense tells you to do what is fun, and if three 1s and a 4th level pregen is fun, you are welcome to do it.

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.
Or there could be a confusion/dominate and turn the level 4 into an unstoppable engine of destruction.

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 :-)

Silver Crusade ****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If you have a table of level 1s or 2s, common sense says you don't allow a level 4 pregen to play at that table.

No, it doesn't. If I want to allow a 4th level pregen in a party of 1s, I do. I've done it with regular PCs, I see no reason not to allow a pregen the same way.

Common sense tells you to do what is fun, and if three 1s and a 4th level pregen is fun, you are welcome to do it.

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.

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:

It does not mean that, and lists aren't parsed that way.

No rebuild is allowed. There is no reason for Mike to comment.

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.

Silver Crusade ****

Walter Sheppard wrote:

A lot of core for us has been forcing us to use good teamwork and tactics. Get that flanking, deny that sneak attack by getting concealment, spread out if expecting a fireball, etc.

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.

Silver Crusade ****

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.

Silver Crusade ****

andreww wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:
Don't expect much difference in challenge. The strong options are as strong as in Standard. Really the only exceptions are swarms.

I suspect that most of the challenge will come due to have a larger proportion of classes which struggle to contribute, especially in the higher tiers. A number of those classes also lose some important archetypes such as Quingong for Monk or Scout for Rogue.

A Fighter/Rogue/Bard/Monk group is likely to have a far rougher ride in 5-9 and 7-11 than Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Paladin.

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

Silver Crusade ****

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.

Silver Crusade ****

The reporting system is very very error prone. If any of your games had a single non core character you're now non core.

When reporting a game there is a warning when this happens but it is fairly well hidden and EXTREMELY easy to miss.

Its an INCREDIBLY bad user interface right now.

Silver Crusade ****

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.

Silver Crusade

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.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trik wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Now that we have acknowledgment, can we get to,"how can I move forward with this character?"
I think that's been addressed a few times. The general consensus is that unless you are willing/able to spend significant prestige on a rebuild, the best option is to throw it in the trash and start up a character you will enjoy. I think everyone can agree that it's not really worth investing large amounts of time into something that you don't think you'll enjoy. There's the possibility that you're wrong, but there's also a good possibility that you're right (as you probably know what you enjoy more than anyone else). May as well put that same time into something you are relatively certain you will enjoy.

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

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:


The characters can still get into the prestige classes. That hasn't changed. It will just take two or three more levels than the player originally thought.

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

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
You could also show them John Compton's initial ruling.

That is perfect. Thanks.

Silver Crusade ****

My only issue with making a game 5 star only is that it means the only chance I'll have to play it will be online (no local 5 star GMs and no local VOs). I suspect there are quite a few areas that fall into that category

And I imagine the competition to get into the online games will be fierce :-).

Silver Crusade ****

Z...D... wrote:

My halfling druid with his battle kitten. He was very fun to play with but at higher levels he will eventually become greatly under powered

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

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?

Silver Crusade

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.

Silver Crusade ****

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.

do I
1) just get a bargain?
2) assume that it is meant to be a CL3 wand with 3 charges
3) assume that it is meant to be a CL1 wand with 9 charges
4) just not buy it because it is wrong
5) ??

Silver Crusade ****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

And of course Golemworks Incident:

Spoiler:

Chrysalis Black. So much messed up stuff going on there.

Loved him as a villain. But

Spoiler:
it is just absurd that he isn't evil. Worst alignment decision ever.

Silver Crusade

Does this table override specific cases? For example, the Shillelagh spell explicitly states that it would do 2d6 damage but the above formula means it does 1d8 (ouch)

Silver Crusade ****

David Higaki wrote:


One thing to note, though, is that in actuality, the requirements for the Prestige Class(es) didn't change at all. What changed is something that counted as a requirement no longer counts. I understand that indirectly, it feels like a change in the prestige class requirements, but it really is not.

I don't understand the distinction you're making.

How is it not a change to say that SLA no longer satisfy the requirement?

Silver Crusade ****

DarkPhoenixx wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade ****

Jeffrey Fox wrote:


Though I do wonder if the reaction to the grandfathering of some characters will make it hard for the same decision to be made in the future and take the grandfathering of some option off the table completely and forced us to only have the guides option.

Which would be sad for some future players.

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.

Silver Crusade ****

Mark Stratton wrote:

All:

To me, they have already gone beyond what is typical for them to do (that is, early entry characters can still play, provided they met certain requirements.) It is...

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:

If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment

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.

Silver Crusade

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

Silver Crusade ****

Winks Blastum wrote:

I would be miffed if I bought the supplement for the main reason of getting a trained animal just to find out it just got banned. I have a tiger as well, in a four player table it comes along (Level

7 PC), a six player table I'll take my riding dog instead. Five player depends if party make up is short on melee. That being said I maybe played that PC only 3-4 times last year.

I believe in earlier organized play campaigns the animals added to the average level of the table, so even a bunch of 1st level characters would be playing a higher difficulty level if they brought a menagerie of animals with them

As a level 7 PC Johns proposal would make your tiger still quite legal.

The problem is only really bad at the lower levels

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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

Silver Crusade ****

David Higaki wrote:


Off-Topic edit: All in favor of Jiggy as forum historian, say 'Aye'.

Ayup.

Finally, something we can (nearly) all agree on :-)

Silver Crusade ****

Describe the montage from the opening credits of "this week in PFS" that shows us your character.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Motta wrote:

Whenever I'm trying to figure out what (I believe) is the right course of action for a paladin, I just ask WWSD (what would Superman do)?

To imprison an innocent - in a gilded cage or otherwise - is wrong. Even when it is done in the name of the greater good. You know that road to hell? The one that is paved with good intentions? This is it. The ends do not justify the means. A paladin would reject the "railroad track dilemma" as a false dichotomy, and find another way -- or die trying.

Which is a funny argument for me to be making, because I'm often accused of being a moral relativist. :P

Its far too simplistic for my tastes to say The Ends Never Justify The Means.

Any paladin who believes that really should NOT join the Pathfinder Society. He'll come into an unresolvable conflict.

When creating a good character for PFS the responsibility is on the player to determine WHY he would become and remain a Pathfinder. Not all character concepts are viable Pathfinders.

Paladins are quite viable Pathfinders. Inflexible characters aren't.

Silver Crusade ****

Nefreet wrote:


If a group shows a propensity for abuse, isn't the next logical step to rein in that abuse?

You're assuming all of the following

1) there previously was abuse
2) the proposals are open to abuse
3) the cost of the abuse is higher than the cost of stopping the abuse

As I've stated, I think that ALL of the above are questionable or false

Silver Crusade ****

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
I just hate seeing the other people be so screwed by how this was implemented when there is another valid option that has been put on the table repeatedly which would fix it with little work and almost no downside.

While I wholeheartedly support the option put forth in another thread to grandfather more and also feel that rebuilds would be a good option, I'd like to point out that almost nobody was THAT screwed (Nefreet just missed being the biggest victim I've heard of).

I DO have horses in this race. An Arcane Trickster wannabe and a Mystic Theurge wannabe. Both are quite viable characters even without the prestige classes. They'll have to move in different directions than intended but they're both recoverable. Heck, there won't even be any noticeable effect for a level or so as the difference between a Wizard 3/Cleric 1 heading for Mystic Theurge and Wizard 3/Cleric 1 NOT heading for Mystic Theurge is rather small :-) (I currently lack the prestige to retrain the cleric level, even if I decide to go that route).

So, the bottom line is a relatively small number of characters became somewhat less powerful and somewhat less cool (I liked my Divine Trickster concept). And Prestige classes (even with early entry) are such a so so or poor option that my Mystic Theurge will arguably end up MORE powerful if I decide to retrain the level of cleric into wizard. Less powerful than a wizard built from scratch would be but more powerful than the Mystic Theurge

And, while I'm sure there are exceptions, I imagine most players taking advantage of the SLA ruling in the first place were fairly experienced players with multiple characters. If I lose a character its really no huge deal, less of an issue than when a beginning player loses one.

I'm less affected by this than I am by a poorly written scenario that unfairly kills one of my characters (for some meaning of "unfair").

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Now, I might suggest this - there's a lot of heated emotion in this debate

I've snipped almost everything else. I've already stated in this thread why I think much of what you said is flat out wrong.

But I'd like to address the quote above. I am NOT seeing nerd rage, heated emotion, name calling. I'm seeing people stating their objections to the PFS ruling and offering reasonable alternatives. Quite respectfully and WITHOUT heated passion.

I'd bet a considerable sum that Mike expected far MORE anger to his ruling than he is actually getting.

I think that you are confusing reasonable debate and voicing of opinions for something else. With a couple of mild exceptions, we ARE being polite and calm.

We most certainly have a right to voice our disapproval of PFS decisions. If Mike is half as smart as I think he is he welcomes our voicing our opinion even when (probably particularly when) we disagree with him

Silver Crusade ****

I've played or run nearly every PFS scenario and don't recognize several of the evil acts you were supposed to do. Its at least possible that the group wasn't completely running as written.

Some of the other things seem more like the old faction missions. Lots of those were pretty nasty but they're a thing of the past.

And the Society has definitely become closer to good aligned in recent seasons.

But your basic point is correct. The Society is NOT good aligned and it DOES have quite a few evil members (PCs can't be evil but NPCs definitely can).

That said, all my characters who care have done significantly more good than evil. It usually takes only one character standing up for what is right to significantly increase the good done and reduce the harm done (usually, NOT always). I've played a paladin through level 12 and he never had to compromise his morals enough to require an atonement. Part of that was luck, part was my not going on some scenarios, but most of it was him managing to not do egregiously evil acts. He DID refuse to do some faction missions.

Silver Crusade ****

Nefreet wrote:

I played my first game as Fighter-1/Wizard-1/EK-1 two days before the ruling was reversed, with a character that I gave 9 boons to (including a certain retirement arc).

One can't help but wonder if your opinion would be different if you had just missed the deadline as opposed to just making it.

That isn't a slam at you. Human nature means that we all notice the injustice more when we are affected as opposed to when we are nearly affected.

On the other hand, I'm sincerely glad that you made the deadline. That would have sucked.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
trik wrote:
If this were a home game and I came up with a character concept, received an 'ok' from the GM (but he explicitly warned me he reserved the right to reverse that decision) that my character progression was within the rules and acceptable...
Fixed that for you.

1) a year and a half ago that caveat was put in place. After this long, is it really unreasonable to think the issue settled?

2) nobody is arguing with the reversal of the ruling. We don't like the "sucks to be you, you can't change the character even though the rules changed".

To be explicit, I'm seeing that attitude from various posters and NOT from Mike or John. And its starting to seriously bug me. People who built characters intending to use the SLA rule did NOTHING wrong and ARE paying a cost for something that is TOTALLY not their fault. John even acknowledged that. Now, Mike and John believe that their solution was the least bad for the campaign and that is their decision to make.

But could we PLEASE stop blaming players who did NOTHING even the tiniest bit wrong or objectionable.

Edit : I just read Nefreets post above where he says he wasn't trying to be condescending. Taking him at his word, he seriously failed his communicate skill roll. It certainly seemed to me that he (and others) have been saying that it was at least partially the players fault for building these characters.

Silver Crusade ****

Nefreet wrote:

I think the "why" was adequately addressed in the locked thread.

A small subset of players ruined grace periods for the rest of us.

Don't blame Mike or John. Blame those who abused their leniency in the past.

I think the biggest disconnect I have is that I just don't see how creating a bunch of Aasimar/Tieflings was really abusive. It was behavior that Mike explicitly expected to happen, he was just surprised at the scope. But I just don't see it as an issue that I have 5 (unplayed since they were no longer legal) banked Aasimars instead of one.

Granting for the sake of argument that was abuse, that just means that advance notice is a bad idea. It doesn't mean that either more liberal grandfathering (as suggested in a different thread) or more liberal rebuilds is automatically bad.

Its no huge deal. I have 3 characters affected. All are still viable if somewhat less powerful now. But I am mildly irked at the decision, especially since I really don't understand it.

Note: I am not blaming anybody. I know they put a lot if thought into it. I fully understand why they don't want to go into more detail as to their reasons. But I think they made the wrong decision and so I remain curious and mildly irked.

Silver Crusade

I think just about everybody above is correct. Different archer types are actually quite well balanced against each other so its largely up to personal preference and campaign which is better.

That said, personally I'd go with Ranger or bard. In my opinion, the biggest drawback to archers is that they can be boring to play. Every action in every combat is "5 ft step, pew pew". Bards and rangers at least have lots more options, both in and out of combat.

Silver Crusade ****

LazarX wrote:
If the mythic version of the spell says that everyone who uses it is subject to that limitaiton, how could the non-mythic one be more powerful in that aspect?

I don't own Mythic. It doesn't exist in any game that I run or play. So using that as an argument to change the clear wording of a non mythic spell is basically completely unacceptable to me.

I accept (with misgivings) that later books can take away options that previously sort of existed (eg, potion sponge). But I reject that later books can ALTER the way that something that is clearly worded works. Not without a FAQ or errata or the like. Especially when that later book is a book that explicitly alters the campaign with optional rules (as opposed to just adding new options).

Silver Crusade ****

"Inari" wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
John and I discussed grandfathering at length. As John and I both advised in the first thread, this is the decision that the PFS team has made and is what we are going with.
Okay, this is a good answer.

Actually, it does not answer the OP at all. The question was "Why was this decision made?". Saying that it was made after discussion and that it won't change does NOT answer "Why".

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The best GMs know that there is no such thing as a best GM because different groups want different things.

There are several suggestions above that I cringe at because they are absolutely NOT what I want to see in a game.

Keep it fun. Try hard to read the table to see what THAT table thinks is fun. Make sure that YOU are having fun or the game WILL suffer. Be flexible.

But beyond generalizations like that I don't think there any universal tricks.

Silver Crusade ****

6 people marked this as a favorite.
"Inari" wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


Because you took a dodgy path, and the rules changed. Same thing with Bracers of the Falcon, vivisectionests, and other things that have changed.

Why no warning or grace? Ask the people who ran 30 minute MotFF runs to get 10 tieflings why.

Okay, I do not think I was abusing any rules,

You absolutely were NOT abusing anything. The PDT were extremely clear that this was known and legal. The people who are saying this was dodgy are 100% wrong.

I totally agree that it is unfair that lots of characters got hurt by this. For reasons that I totally don't understand many people (unfortunately including Mike) seem to thing that rebuilds and grandfathering are inherently abusive.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Silver Crusade ****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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 :-).

Silver Crusade ****

Michael Eshleman wrote:


I'd also advocate for a campaign mode-only PFS sanction of Wrath of the Righteous. I think that the main challenge would be constructing the chronicle sheets. I haven't read the AP, so I'm not sure how much mythic treasure there is and how much would/should be added to the chronicle sheets, or what special boons might be added.

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.

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:


Now, imagine what an animal could do with a rank of Appraise...

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"
Dog : " smelly and I can roll around in it. MINE"
Raven : " Shiney. MINE"

Silver Crusade ****

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
2) access to lots of feats when Int reaches 3. Note that there is a little bit of table variation in what feats are allowed.

Getting to Int 3 is generally a VERY good idea

Silver Crusade ****

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tuna Slaad wrote:

It comes down to this, campaign leadership, Mike and John, have ruled what is in the best interest of the campaign. This is why we have professional leadership.

You asked and they confirmed the decision in the best interest of the campaign.

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.

Silver Crusade ****

Fomsie wrote:


While we would all love to think that everyone would follow their "word of honor" in such cases, past experience has shown that people do not.

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?

1 to 50 of 1,125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.