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 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto. 1,645 posts (2,321 including aliases). 27 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 46 Pathfinder Society characters. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,645 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Jeff Hazuka wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
"Pick your spots, stay mobile. Never get full-attacked."
Yeah, those really aren't doable if you're melee. Or a lot of things really.

Let's make it simple. You're level 1. There's a ghoul.

If you stay adjacent, it attacks you three times. If you move away, provoking, it attacks you twice. If you tumble away, it might only get to attack you once.

It's not rocket surgery.

Front liners also generally take on the responsibility of defending the squishies. They have the AC and fort saves to do so.

A group where nobody is willing to take on that role is a group that, in general, is going to have a LOT of difficulties in succeeding. Quite likely with quite a few squishy deaths :-(

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Con 12 is quite survivable if not a front liner. Especially with favored class bonus going to hit points. I've got a couple of L9+ Tengus

But one thing that I've found in higher level play (L9+ or so) is that, every now and then despite ones best efforts, one just needs Hit Points. So most of my characters tend to at least strongly consider getting toughness at some point and either a belt or Ioun stone to raise their Con.

And keep their cloaks of resistance up and even sometimes buy Great Fortitude (poor fort saves can also be a killer, of course)

Silver Crusade

Would you allow a herb witch? Note that, unlike most witches, this would have a secondary role as a healer.

Probably human but that may change

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I definitely treated it as just flavour (especially the left over) designed to avoid having to spend time with the characters shopping for equipment.

Player: So, do we need
GM interrupts: You've got all the basic stuff you'll need. Move on

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Serisan wrote:
andreww wrote:
Can you tell us if the new seeker content has a hard mode? I thought I read a rumour which suggested that was the case.
The fact that it has a 14-15 subtier isn't hard mode enough? Sure, players have a lot of capacity in that subtier, but you can do some fun things in a monster budget with that.

I have yet to play a high level (12+) module in PFS that wasn't basically a rotflstomp.

That said, I'm not at all sure that I want a hard mode. Abusing some of the higher level abusive spells and monsters would likely just be a boring TPK

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Michael Hallet wrote:


Prior to PFS, I played in Living Forgotten Realms where you could do a complete rebuild of your character (except for name) at every level up.

It didn't detract from my fun one bit.

While I am a very strong proponent of liberal rebuild options when things change I think that went too far (and did when I played LFR). For example, one chose stats so as to always maximize the benefits (no taking a 17 at level 1)

Silver Crusade

I hate to just quit a game without notice so:

at this point I am assuming that this game is no more, it is an ex game, it has gone to meet its maker.

Silver Crusade

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I doubt you'll find much help on this forum, as this is a controversial area. Part of the issue is that Pathfinder itself changes radically as characters level.

Aragorn, son of Arathorn, later to be King Elessar, for example, never does anything that would suggest he's any higher than about 5th level.

I completely agree that this is a very controversial area.

For example, I think that article is fundamentally flawed in a great many ways.

One major problem is that the pathfinder ruleset does NOT match reality at all well. Most fiction does a better job of matching reality. So fictional characters are all over the map in pathfinder rules. If you take one ability, they're 1st level, another and they're 20th.

One simple example is perception. The -1 per 10 feet is totally and utterly unrealistic outside of a dungeon. So any character who is good at perceiving things just can NOT have their perception measured using Pathfinder rules.

Silver Crusade

May I also recommend the Herb Witch archetype? Not PFS legal if that is an issue but it gives you some very nice condition removal options. Even scales well with the prestige class

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Matt Lewis wrote:
But let's be clear here, we're talking about proper bacon, rather than the far inferior American attempt, right?

Didn't we fight a war about this back in the 18th century and win?

Well the loser had to eat nothing but boiled food fish and chips for the next millennium so...

Sorry folks. Canada definitely wins the "best bacon" wars

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
andreww wrote:
Michael Hallet wrote:

Here is the not too atypical party that I've come across. 4, 3, 2, 2, 2.

APL is 2.6 which rounds to 3. Because they have 5 players and at least one player is level 4-5, they are forced to play subtier 4-5, which has made for very difficult encounters.
The even more dangerous group, 3,3,3,2,2 is also APL2.6 which rounds to 3. If they are in a season 4+ they have to play high tier with the 4 player adjustment which is likely to be pretty deadly. Season 0-3 they play low tier and roflstomp it
Both of these scenarios (especially being forced to play up) is just unfair to the player/character. There are a vast number of scenarios that will result in a TPK just because of the expected power level of those playing in a 4-5 tier (or more specifically to my point, being forced into a 6-7 tier).

The big issue is rounding twice. 2.6 rounds to 3 which then goes to 4-5.

I think that the correct solution is that if the final number is within a subtier you play in that subtier. 2.6 should always be low subtier

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are lots and lots of martial options out there. If you're allowing them all then you have to find a niche for your barbarian in that design space. Which is no easy job. And you'll need to refine your request a LOT before you can hope to get useful advice.

If you're NOT allowing them all then perhaps the best solution is to take one of those options and reflavour it. For example, the hunter with no companion, or the metamorph alchemist might be a better starting point.

Edit: you should also decide what level range the campaign will cover. The effect of 3/4 BAB increases with level. If the campaign is going to stay low level (which is how I'd run a Stone Age campaign) then the probkem becomes much easier to handle

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

James Risner wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:
people are way overexaggerating the impact of the Fencing Grace errata
Especially considering there was no question it would be errata, only the question of when it would be. Apparently soon.

Some of us find it rather hard to predict what Paizo will do. In fact, some of us have found some of Paizo's decisions to be nigh incomprehensible.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klusignolo wrote:
I have never played a pathfinder society game. I am currently in a Game with some friend and have played to a 7th level druid, but the bulk of my role playing has been in D&D 5E. I am willing to make a core or standard character but I don't know where to find an online game. If anyone is still running games for newbies i'd love to join in

I'd suggest trying this site. There are currently several upcoming low tier games advertised there

Edit: and new players are very welcome there

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Jeff Cook wrote:
Read the warrant again guys. There is nothing in that warrant says she can arrest the PCs. Question yes Arrest no. Just make it abundantly clear she is overstepping her authority. ("You have the right to see your arrest warrant" flutters it from balcony but has no intention of letting them read it) and take it from there

If that were the intended interpretation I'd expect there to be a knowledge local or profession lawyer check for a character to realize that fact.

Because "right to question" in Cheliax almost certainly does include "right to detain" and very probably "right to torture".

And "this lawful authority is overstepping their authority" does NOT legally mean that you have the right to resist arrest. It means that you are supposed to go along right now and bring it up later.

Cops constantly overstep their authority in the real world. Doesn't let people get away with killing them. Even in modern, law abiding, "good" nations. Let alone in police states.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Snorter wrote:

It may be gamist in the extreme, but at least it's easy to explain, simple to remember, and makes 'common sense'.

I'll grant you that it is easy to explain and remember but I vehemently disagree that it makes common sense.

Dangerous monsters are far more likely to be the stuff of legends and stories than weak ones that aren't a local danger.

Just about everybody in Golarion will have heard enough stories about dragons to at least have some chance of identifying a dragon. They are far more likely to misidentify a wyvern as a dragon than vice versa.

Everybody in Ustalov will know a fair bit about vampires.

But I find it hard to believe that many peopke would recognize a Formian worker.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

@Risner
My fox Kitsune (who also happens to have a ring):

I think that I may have turned back into a human by mistake. Definitely did NOT make the other errors

At level 6 gets attacks at +16/16/11 doing d3+15. So can easily do 50 odd pts of damage on a full attack unbuffed.

Has a base AC of 25 or so at level 6.

@andreww - my fox Kitsune has been pretty effective in your games. Not game breakingly so but effective. Of course, I try hard to NOT build characters that are too powerful.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barton "Bart" Oliver wrote:


Ok, but let's separate two concepts - value and cost. Value would be the value to your situation versus the value of something else taking into account the cost of that item/feat/trait versus using that gp/feat slot/trait for something else. (In other words cost benefit analysis). The cost is what the item costs - which the Build a Magic Item guidelines are literally the guidelines for determining some additional fudging required.

I don't care one whit what an item "should" cost per the magic item creation guidelines. I only care what it does cost (lots and lots and lots of items are NOT costed correctly according to those creation guidelines) AND what its value is.

Ideally, the cost should approximate the value. Well over 1/2 the magic items in the game fall into the "cost is way higher than the value and are therefore ignored in any game with Magic Wall Mart" category. Which is unfortunate.

An item is only a problem if the value is significantly less than the cost. Actual value vs actual cost.

And an item should be banned in PFS only if the value is game breakingly less than the cost.

For a build like the Bird of Doom built completely around the ring the value is, admittedly, very high. But that is an extreme edge case. And, even then, one could argue that the value is the difference in effectiveness between a Human or 1/2 Orc or whatever Bird of doom vs a Kitsune fox or halfling with the Ring.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Barton "Bart" Oliver wrote:


Ok let's assume for a second that the Featherscale cloak is a good comparison and correctly priced. May or may not be true, but that's a completely different argument I don't have any interest in, atm Can I use it to evaluate the Ring, is that acceptable?

** spoiler omitted **...

The "build your own magic item" guidelines aren't a great guide to how valuable an item is.

Far better to do the mental experiment "would I buy the item at price x".

Personally, for my fox form Kitsune, I'd buy the item for about 8-10k or so.

And I wouldn't build a character around the item, not when it is pissible to build a simikar character as a fox kitsune, halfling with reduce person, etc.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

James Risner wrote:


So you will find more "permanent" fox form Kitsune and bat form Skinwalkers than you find Ring of Seven Lovely Colors PCs.

In fairness, my Fox form kitsune bought the ring. He mostly fights in fox form but, at 4K, the ring was too good to pass up for those times when you really need to fly.

Which is why I think the ring too cheap but not game breakingly so.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

James Risner wrote:


It makes me wonder if the OP has played a build like this (tiny)? I have. Double provoking when you move to be in the same square so you can attack is a pain. You take damage from that more than you do from being attacked on monster's turns. You can't flank (without a level in Swashbuckler Mouser). You can't gain reach (Lunge only works when making attacks; Longarm bracers are expensive and limited; all other methods suck)

I don't know about the OP but I've certainly played my Kitsune Mouser. The provoking isn't a huge issue since I have a very high acrobatics skill, lots of movement and a quite high AC.

There IS considerable variation on what the DC of the acrobatics check is but almost all GMs allow it (much of the play was before they decided that a 5 ft step into somebodies square provokes but it really has made very little difference).

One of the down sides is that the character is fairly complex with unexpected rules interactions. But I make sure to check with the GM at the start of the session how they'll rule things and let them know the potential issues.

The ring is just gravy on my character. Tasty gravy admittedly. If it was outlawed my character would be essentially unchanged, I'd just buy some potions of fly :-)

Silver Crusade

There are quite a few Pathfinder Society scenarios that would fit with some reasonably minor changes.

Off the top of my head:

Social:
Hellknights Feast
Blakros Matrimony
Scars of the Third Crusade
Merchant's Wake

Heist:
Bronze House Reprisal
Serpents Rise

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ring is underpriced but not by as huge an amount as the OP thinks.

I have a mouser Kitsune who fights in Fox form. At level 6 he was about on par with a barbarian for expected damage. Which IS too powerful considering that the barbarian really ONLY does damage and the Kitsune does much more.

But he isn't brokenly overpowered.

The ring let me get by some significant limitations very cheaply. Suddenly I have (essentially) free flight at will with no change to my combat effectiveness.

4k is too cheap for that. I'd guesstimate a value of about 10k for my character. I certainly would NOT buy it at 20k, I'd just rely on potions of fly.

The best solution in my mind would be to increase the price of the item. Not going to happen as a PFS only rule (nor should it).

I think banning underpriced items is a step that should be taken only under the most extreme circumstances. And I just don't see this item as SO underpriced that it warrants that banning.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.

[More venting]There is a very similar issue with spellcraft.
GM : Bad guy throws a spell
Player : Spellcraft : Oops, got an 8. Don't know
GM: Right, you do NOT recognize what the spell is as a bead of fire leaves the casters hand and bursts into a bunch of flame. A ball sized chunk of flame

One really, really should get a bonus for spellcraft if it is on your spell list and an even higher bonus if it is a spell known/prepared
[/more Venting]

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I believe the flaire's have been errata'd to specifically count as not being there.
True, but it does nerf the flavor (and in the case of the tankard of the cheerful duelist I designed (and wish was PFS legal) specifically nerfs the reason it works the way it does.)

In all fairness I imagine the vast majority of GMs would allow you to have a mug in your hand despite the ruling. Unless you're trying to gain some mechanical advantage from it.

At least up here and in online play, GMs just do not enforce the rules THAT stringently.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GeoffA wrote:
I have not read the entire thread, so forgive me if I am being repetitious. In my real life work as a college professor I have seen numerous situations where a student knew something once and then couldn't recall it correctly in a pressure situation. I'm assuming that fighting a demon is roughly equivalent to taking a calculus test ;-)

I don't think the analogy really holds.

There is a word for a professional adventurer who reacts badly to high pressure, dangerous situations.

Corpse.

Seriously, some people react much better to danger than others. Successful adventurers, by definition, handle it well

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:


There are quite a few monsters where even knowing the creature type can give more information than the players should have (and I MEAN players, not characters). In those cases, I ask the player to roll a D20 and hand me their character sheet. They automatically get to roll if they ask "What do I know about it".

They should not have to ask to roll, especially in PFS.

There is no rule requirement that you have to ask to roll.

More importantly in PFS There is no way that the players can know that you require them to ask to roll, or whether you require that they make a general knowledge check or if they're going to have to sit there and make 10 different knowledge checks to try to figure the thing out. This is not a settled procedure and its something that you have to tell the players how it works.

I try hard to remember to tell unknown players how I run things. Certainly, if an unknown player doesn't ask I'll try to remind them.

But I definitely believe that characters only get to roll when they act (usually on their initiative). And, in the middle of combat when I'm juggling the usual plethora of things a GM is juggling I don't think it unreasonable to put the responsibilty of asking questions on the player. If they don't care enough to remember to ask why should I care to remember to tell them?

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
On the flip side, I've had GMs who wouldn't even let you make a knowledge check unless you a) specifically asked and b) correctly guessed which knowledge check to make. Even worse, sometimes they would only let you make one or two checks a turn, so it was possible for characters with two knowledge skills to identify creatures faster than scholar characters with 10 ranks in everything.

Ugh. I cannot express how much i hate it when i see this. Bonus points if you get accused for metagaming when you correctly call which knowledge skill you shouldbe using on the first try.

"how'd you know you need knowledge arcana to recognize a dragon?"

"For my dragon obsessed dragon disciple that turns into a dragon .. yeah i think he knows how to id a dragon

There are quite a few monsters where even knowing the creature type can give more information than the players should have (and I MEAN players, not characters). In those cases, I ask the player to roll a D20 and hand me their character sheet. They automatically get to roll if they ask "What do I know about it".

On the flip side, I have a strong tendency to have my Know it all characters have all knowledge skills either identical or very close. So I can tell the GM: I got a Knowledge 27. +2 if planes or religion

My favourite question (both as a GM and player) is "tell me what you think my character would know". Because, lets face it, for LOTS of monsters the most interesting information would be far better known than specific mechanical details. For some, its special attacks ("Wight. Drains your life. RUN"), for others its special defences ("Caratyd columns used to damage your weapons, fortunately about 10 years ago the universe shifted so they aren't dangerous any longer :-)") for others it may well be its personality "Faerie dragons are mischevous but fairly good natured in general"

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Knowledge skills in Pathfinder are very, very broken. By the rules, most 15th level fighters know almost nothing about the monsters they've been fighting for the last 10 levels or so.

And in PFS, where there is no group memory of what you actually know, it is even worse.

Expect extreme table variation on what you know, what DCs are, what you find out with a particular result.

Personally, I'm firmly in the "Characters know a lot more than is reflected in their knowledge scores" camp.

In theory, your character went to Pathfinder school for several years. That school at least covered the basics :
If it is fleshy, use a slashing weapon
If it is boney, use a blunt weapon
ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS use a cold iron weapon if it isn't magical.

etc.

I agree with Andrew - characters know at LEAST as much as the player would if just given the description of the monster.

If a player tells me that his character has encountered a monster before then I'm fine with his character knowing more or less what the player remembers (within reason if the player has eidetic memory or the like). And I certainly do NOT expect players to lean over so far not to take advantage of player knowledge that they actively hurt themselves.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Joanna Gore wrote:
If I can only support two of them, I don't know if the others are going to survive.
I know everyone like prizes and rewards. There is no arguing that fact, but have some faith in your players. The vast majority of people don't play PFS because of some piece of paper. Its the game they love and the people they enjoy playing with that brings them back. Boons and other prizes are just the icing on an otherwise very tasty and satisfying cake. While it might require an adjustment in how we approach events and how we view the rewards, once the process is in place and moving, I am confident it will have little to no impact on a player's decision to play Pathfinder or to continue supporting their local events.

I thought the entire rationale for Con boons in the first place was to help get GMs. There is a rather large disconnect between that rationale and your post above

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

SCPRedMage wrote:


Paul Jackson wrote:
Edit: and if you're right then the feat is pretty much TOTALLY useless
Not useless at all, just much less useful than the Chicken Little scenario; Call Truce has no restrictions about having to couch the cease fire request as a better idea than just murdering the people they want to murder, meaning it can be used in more situations than the feat-less version.

It causes combat to cease for a minute. I guess you can then use diplomacy to shift attitude.

But the skill, according to you, ALREADY allows me to make a request of a hostile party. DC is 25 +/- bonuses for request. So, feat maybe gives me a +5 on that.

I think that, if you're right, this goes firmly into the "far, far too expensive for what it does" category.

I actually think that you are correct from an extremely strict parsing of the language. I stand by my assertion that it is very badly worded and WILL be misinterpreted due to how badly it is worded.

And I stand by my assertion that it won't be an issue in PFS because almost nobody will take it.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

SCPRedMage wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
The second paragraph is really unclear. It certainly says NOTHING about reducing the time. I think that it is just further restricting what can be accomplished
The second paragraph explicitly mentions that it is referring to making requests of hostile or unfriendly creatures, not about adjusting their attitudes first. Using the rules in the second paragraph does not require spending a minute to improve their attitude first. It is not ambiguous about this.

Rereading the paragraph 3 times and rereading what you're saying I can now see where you are coming from but I am not remotely sure that you're right. If that is the intent it is incredibly badly written.

I think that all the second paragraph is doing is to further restrict what diplomacy can accomplish. It is not changing the time or the restriction at all.

At the least, it certainly is ambiguous

Edit: and if you're right then the feat is pretty much TOTALLY useless

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Bob Jonquet wrote:
I will, however, work with the VCs to determine appropriate locations and provide a detailed account to Tonya for review. If she has any issues with the distribution, she can address it directly.

Since you ARE my regional coordinator I hope you can see why I am unhappy with this reply.

Don't got no VC here. Despite having at least one good candidate. So presumably that means no support here.

What appears to be unfair lack of attention feeds on itself. We get ignored so that we then get MORE ignored.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Deadmanwalking wrote:


The rules in Ultimate Intrigue explicitly allow for using Diplomacy to call a cease fire as a full round action without the need for a Feat.

The rules do NOT say that. Not at all.

The first paragraph says that the Core rules says it takes a full round PLUS a minute (assuming the enemies are hostile). Clarifies the Core rules in a bad way

The second paragraph is really unclear. It certainly says NOTHING about reducing the time. I think that it is just further restricting what can be accomplished

Not sure it is appropriate to cut and paste that much text.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

SCPRedMage wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
And this feat only lets me call for a Cease Fire in circumstances when I want to surrender or call it a draw.
Well, it does buy you enough time to make a Diplomacy check to improve their attitude, which could result in them no longer wanting to fight.

No it doesn't, actually. Not when they're losing it doesn't

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm certainly concerned about issues of visibility. I'm in a region that, despite being the largest PFS community in the province (and likely country) currently doesn't have a Venture Captain and, for about 4 years now, has not had a Venture Captain within 100 miles of it.

Correctly or incorrectly, I definitely have the impression that my area gets very, very little attention. I know that I am not the only person in my area with that impression.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole conversation made me go back and re-read the Cease Fire section of UI.

And I realized that the feat is even worse than I thought. NOBODY in their right mind in PFS is going to take it. So, in PFS, the situation is probably unchanged at almost all tables. GMs who would previously allow diplomacy to have a chance to succeed still will. Since nobody will take the feat no need to be fair to the people who do :-) :-)

The skill section in UI on diplomacy and cease fire is actually remarkably unclear as to whether they are suggesting that it takes 11 rounds or can be done more quickly. Rereading it I realize that I actually have no clue what they are suggesting, except that they think somebody will only accept a Cease Fire if they think it is in their interests (well, duh :-)).

The Feat section gives me a feat.

This feat actually has quite significant prerequisites (over and above the feat tax) that lots of diplomatic characters will NOT meet. So much for being a diplomat without high charisma. Or a bard with versatile performance. Less than 1/2 my diplomatic characters qualify, even ignoring the persuasive feat. Many are bards, many have reasonable Cha of 14 odd and lots of skill ranks.

None have persuasive, of course, as it is a pretty awful feat and there are much better alternatives, even for characters where shmoozing is a high priority.

And this feat only lets me call for a Cease Fire in circumstances when I want to surrender or call it a draw. I cannot use it to call on the opponents to surrender. So, the feat is useless when you're winning and want to stop killing the opponents.

Silver Crusade

Given there are 253 requests for this FAQ I'd be kinda amazed if they weren't aware of this thread.

I disagree that this is a particularly complicated area. Basically, it boils down to

1) Let some (still only a rare few) bardic masterpieces be useful. Come up with words to do that (lots of suggestions in this thread)
2) Admit that almost all of them are completely useless for almost all bards and a waste of design space (the only masterpiece that I'd even consider taking with the harsh interpretation is Symphony of the Elysian Heart)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Gregory Rebelo wrote:
Rhode Island has been added, as well as southeastern Massachusetts. Wish I could figure out how to edit the descrition box once it's submitted, but c'est la vie.

As I said above, try adding the identical event again (but this time with description). That seemed to work for me

Edit: now that I'm zoomed out, I see that there are actually 2 entries for each location. Hopefully BNW can remove the one without the description

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

After I registered (didn't try before so not sure if that mattered) I added the same event again with more detail. This seemed to totally replace the old one as far as I can see.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

I've registered but still don't seem to be able to edit the pins that I made. Any suggestions?

Edit: I failed to record the addresses when I added them. Oops

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Very good idea.

Toronto added.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lumiapina wrote:

Hi, the author here!

It's been enlightening to read about your experiences playing the scenario and I'm glad that many of you enjoyed playing it or at least parts of it. I've taken note of the issues raised and I'll keep them in mind for any future endeavors.

Ultimately I'm pretty happy how the scenario turned out, as it is the first I've ever done. In hindsight I'd probably cut something from the previous sections to make room for more options and guidance for the ending.

Thank you everyone for your discussions and feedback.

Thanks for chiming in and reading the comments.

I suspect that you've read my review but I should point out that a significant part of my disappointment is how much I was enjoying the scenario until the very end. The scenario as a whole was excellent, I just disliked the ending. If the scenario hadn't been so good to start I'd probably not have cared enough to post everything that I've been posting :-)

And it is obvious from this thread that my opinion of the ending is far from universal.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

You can, and it gets you partial completion of the scenario. Then again, it does cause you to lose Zefiro's unique papers and the trail to where he's being held.

But why would we really care about that? Our mission was to check the site.

In character AND as a player I was very surprised that even the primary success condition was at risk. The primary success condition SHOULD have been to explore the ruins.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Just a warning to people that apparently Hero Lab output files (the ones specifically outputted using what Hero Lab thinks is the Fantasy Grounds format) aren't actually compatible with Fantasy Grounds.

Or so two GMs have told me. Although one managed it after some thought/work.

The instructions to be found http://www.fg-con.com/information/pathfinder-society-organized-play/prepari ng-your-pc-for-fantasy-grounds/ (this link was sent by the GMs and I think is provided above) are apparently incorrect.

I sincerely hope that Fantasy Grounds realizes how negative this experience has become for me.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

There is rather a large gap between "Not trusting and liking Cheliax" and "Killing legal authorities who are trying to legally arrest you".

When I played Part 1 we were very, very careful to use nonviolent means to get Mireille away.

Oh, and the characters do NOT know in part 1 that openly being Pathfinders results in harder encounters.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I should make clear. I read the scenario after playing it and I am not in the slightest blaming Andrew (the GM). He did an excellent job running it as written.

In the first part of the trilogy (which I'd read about 10 minutes before playing part 2 since I was running it that evening :-)) it was made VERY clear that we were supposed to act nice with Cheliax. Why is this now different? Sure, the officials are Lawful Evil. That was known when we were told to play nice with them.

I tried to talk our way out of the encounter by bluffing her that we had been to the site and had bought into the fact that it was a Lost Colony of Taldor.

That should have had at least a chance of succeeding. What if we'd actually failed to realize that it WAS all a plant?

That is what, from the character perspective, really makes no sense. Cheliax wanted us to vet the site and then want to arrest us even though they have no idea whether we bought their lies or not. Clearly there is some kind of misunderstanding, clearly we should at least have a chance to talk our way out of it (or so thinks the bard :-)).

From a player perspective if felt that we were faced with an impossible dilemma with no way to know the "right" answer. It was quite plausible that we were just running afoul of internal politics and the "right" answer was to surrender and then convince the authorities that we had, in fact, done nothing wrong. After all, they'd invited us to go see the ruins.

Murder hoboing was obviously an option. Its always an option. But man did it feel wrong to kill people for just doing their duty. And I'll point out that not all Hellknights are Evil. In fact, there are Hellknight paladins.

Compounding things, one of the characters was a loyal Chelaxian and another a paladin. These are people who are supposed to kill guards?

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

I played at the last FG Con when they were allowing people to play for free.

I haven't a clue if that means that I have already used up my free demo license or not. Anybody have any idea how I can find out (other than waiting for the game and seeing if it lets me connect, which seems a little antisocial :-))

1 to 50 of 1,645 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.