|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Maybe. I agree that it would be a good idea if it wasn't abused. I don't know if it would be abused or not.
Right now people sometimes "cheat". As you say, sometimes it is in order to help the game. And sometimes it is for the benefit of the cheater.
The one thing that really troubles me is that the newer player is more likely to be hurt than the experienced one. Most of the more experienced have multiple characters so losing one is less of an issue. And there are lots of rules pitfalls we're likely to avoid.
I suspect the best answer is to keep the rules fairly strict with the knowledge that sometimes people will break the rules, very often for good reason. And to not worry about the rules breaking too much as long as it remains infrequent
By level 5 the barbarian should be doing more. Its about when they can afford a furious weapon which both does more damage and, importantly, gets by various DRs. Plus feats like vital strike, etc.
But that's not my point. The point is that until about Level 4 or 5 (depending on build) the Dex based SB seriously under performs. Before l5 they can't rely on panache very much. They don't do as much damage. They're LESS mobile.
Its not in Ultimate Equipment. Not in my copy, anyway.
A bog standard Level 1 barbarian does 2d6 + 12 damage (great sword, rage, power attack) for 19 pts of damage.
By level 5 the swashbuckler is getting close (1d6 + 4 (Dex) + 1 (wpn training) + 5 ( level) + 2 (specln) for 15.5 damage. Actually passes if using power attack for 19.5. But its moderately hard for the swash to afford 13 str. Better criticals, admittedly.
So I concede that an efficiently built L5 swashbuckler does more damage than the base level 1 barbarian. Against most monsters.
Killing is rarely evil. We kill to eat, we kill to defend ourselves, we kill to stop someone from hurting, killing or destroying something and we kill in war ie Joan of Arc. It's only when killing is for fun, profit or malice that it becomes evil. James bond is a hero. So too Indiana Jones.
One can make a very strong argument that James Bond (the one in the books, at least) is evil. He kills those he is ordered to kill, without reason except that he is following orders.
At high levels the swashbuckler may be competitive but it is significantly less powerful at lower levels (especially if you actually make a Dex based build). A Dex build is pretty much garbage (in terms of fulfilling the traditional fighter role of doing damage and/or tanking) until you get either an agile weapon or Dervish Dance (both non core)
And those low saving throws make a massive Achilles heel. Hopefully one that will be fixed when the actual book comes out.
Its not really clear what is allowed. The following is what I think is the general consensus from the threads that I've seen.
If you're dinged by the GM or the scenario and your alignment shifts towards evil then you need an atonement to shift back.
But if you decide that your character has shifted alignment then you just change alignment. Between sessions, of course.
The best approach is also going to depend a LOT on the scenario. For example, if it is Library of the Lion I'd strongly recommend playing it before reading, both because the scenario would be MUCH more fun and because an hour would be enough time to prepare as long as you had the stuff from the GM shared prep printed.
...someone asks what you're playing, and you try to say "A cleric of Iomedae, melee-oriented, probably the highest AC at the table, decent damage and especially good at fighting demons," but you're interrupted after the word "cleric" with a chorus of "Oh good, we have a healer!"
One of the biggest benefits of the Advanced Class Guide is that I can now describe my clerics as warpriests, even if technically they aren't :-). Especially useful when signing up for a game.
While I completely agree that a cleric does NOT have to be a healer, I take rather strong exception to your claim that a cleric played as a healer is being played improperly. I quite often enjoy playing healbots and I'd appreciate it if you do NOT describe that as badwrong fun.
I strongly disagree. Its somewhat situational but it is still very valuable in two circumstances
1) you REALLY don't want to be hit
I've got it on at least 2 characters. While I don't always use it I'm glad at least once a scenario that I have it. And its saved my characters life on at least one occassion.
Note: I still think it should be legal to retrain it, even though my characters wouldn't. The value definitely significantly changed with the Nerf.
I ran it with 2 experienced players and 3 new players playing pregens.
When I noticed one of the new players grabbing Valeros I had an inspiration. I first read out the mission briefing and THEN had the players pick characters. I'm pretty sure he had more fun playing Merisiel than he would Valeros.
Everybody had a good time, avoiding all combats except the book swarm (death by a thousand paper cuts). I had an absolute blast.
My one regret is that I ran this before playing it. This is going to suffer far more than most scenarios from knowing what is coming.
You can legally retrain a feat at level 4 even if you couldn't otherwise have gained it at level 4
I absolutely love druids and definitely agree with everybody who claims that wild shape is very, very good as it is but I think this is a bit of an exaggeration.
Different classes shine in different ways. There is no one "best" class.
** spoiler omitted **
I love creative solutions. But there are sometimes issues:
1) sometimes the creative solution abuses the RAW sufficiently that I can't in good conscience allow it in PFS (I'm significantly more lenient in home games)
2) sometimes a creative solution really isn't. The first time one sees a character throwing sand in an opponents eyes its cool. The thousandth time its hackneyed and boring.
Out of curiousity, other than coolness factor, why would you want to do this? The penalties (-2 to hit, no shield bonus) seem to offset the additional damage. I guess with enlarge person, leadblades, etc the extra damage may compensate but most of the time I don't like the tradeoff.
I'd also very much expect GM variation. I'm not at all sure that I'd allow this in PFS. Parsing the sentences as finely as you are is overdoing RAW in my opinion. This is one case where I'd say the intent is crystal clear.
I think this falls squarely into the "unclear. Expect table variation." category. Which means the GM definitely gets to decide without invoking Rule 0.
Yeah, you can make grammatical legalistic arguments one way or the other. But the rules aren't written at that level of precision. Nor should they be.
Up until season 5 I at least knew which characters at the table were which factions (always as GM, usually as a player).
Now I almost never know, even in the reasonably rare season 5 scenarios I run or play.
Whatever the goal or rationale, the fact of the matter is that factions are now nearly irrelevant.
Except to arbitrarily STOP my character from getting a reward they should have. Some of the Season 5 boons have absolutely no in world reason to be applied only to members of a particular faction. Eg, the Silver Crusade boon from Wardstone Patrol. The boon was minor, but it definitely irked me that the Silver Crusader got it and my character didn't despite the fact that it was my character who was mostly responsible for the group accomplishing the required task.
A potion of gaseous form is on my "get out of death free" list. Mostly for grapples but it also works in various other circumstances.
I also really like obscuring must on a scroll in a spring loaded wrist sheathe. Shutting down ranged attackers for at least a round can be very effective at saving your butt.
You're going to get a lot of different opinions on this.
But yeah, it seems pretty much evil to me. You're using magic to mind %&$# people for fun and profit.
It also seems to me that the GM is letting you get away with a lot. But people will disagree on that too. One persons "creative use of magic" is another persons "cheesy rules abuse".
The normal disclaimer "do what you want as long as everybody is having fun" doesn't apply since everybody is NOT having fun.
There is no requirement to have read every post ever made. Message board posts are binding if you have read them, but not otherwise.
I think that he should be allowed to rebuild the illegal levels for free and would have to retrain any other stuff
While I agree with most people that Crane Wing and Riposte are now very bad and got overnerfed, I'd like to point out that Crane Style itself is still very useful. I'd have thought that your arcane duelist/dawnflower dervish would still be quite functional just with Crane Style. I know that my Urban Barbarian/dawnfloweer dervish is. Sure, she gets hit sometimes but her AC is high enough that its not a huge deal.
We found out about the password in the mission briefing. My paladin was about to refuse to participate in the mission (ie, I'd play another character) when the GM pointed out that it was just a password.
That let my Paladin decide that saying the phrase was OK. It really isn't a lie, any more than saying "the sun shines in Tibet" would be a lie.
I am firmly of the opinion that a significant amount of latitude has to be given to paladins, especially in PFS, or they're functionally unplayable.
One GM locally (Mergy, in fact), insists on this, and is fairly strict on ordering animals requiring a handle aninal roll. No real net effect that I've noticed as long as your handle animal skill is reasonable. Just takes more dice rolls and more rules minutia for the same effect.
It does impact characters that have low handle animal skills or who really abuse what an animal plausibly should be able to do.
Doug Miles wrote:
Thanks to everyone for all the responses. If nothing else it is helpful to 'take the temperature' of the community, re: people's views and tolerances for role-play. It remains very interesting to see how the gamer culture has morphed since 1st Edition, even since the 3.5 rules.
If you think people who disagree with you don't value roleplaying (which is how, very possibly incorrectly, I am interpreting that) then I think you are reading far more into the responses than I am
Its actually not that simple. One can detect as evil but not be evil (a neutral cleric of an evil god being the simplest example. Different God granted abilities behave differently in differentcircumstancesI
Any paladin playing in PFS pretty much HAS to make SOME compromises in order to continue playing. He HAS to cooperate with characters who are evil in everything except what is written on the character sheet. He has to do a great many morally questionable things and follow orders from evil individuals.
I've got a good rationale why my paladin has chosen this difficult task. I think that I do a reasonably good job of walking that line between being a paladin and being a member of PFS. It bugs me when I see other players playing their paladins in ways that I consider quite wrong for a paladin.
But I have absolutely no interest in explaining to a GM why my character acts as he does, I have absolutely no interest in finding out if a GM agrees with my interpretation. As a GM I have no interest in judging another players roleplaying (except perhaps in the bar after the session)
I think this idea is a very, very bad one, even though I agree totally with the goal.
Do you only want players who can sign up for both games? I've played Frozen Fingers before. I'd like to either play just Silken Carevan OR play both but be playing Frozen Fingers not for credit.
(note, signed up for Silken Caravan. Will cancel if you prefer)
Your class is only one part of your character motivations.
My tengu druid is a sea captain. He joined the Pathfinder Society mainly as a cover for his smuggling and in order to get lots of contacts for later. He is Andoran partly because he can become a captain in their navy (which opens up all sorts of possibilities) and partly because he owes them a debt.
Almost none of this comes up on screen, unfortunately. But it let's me play a somewhat atypical druid who would join the society.
The Fox wrote:
I mostly agree with this. I do have a few minor modifications.
If you call me on a rules mistake and I disagree, unless its important please delay the discussion until later. I might be right, I might be wrong, the rule might be ambiguous, but now isn't the best time to go into it. Unless its important.
Occasionally one shifting the BBEG is fine. If you're shutting down all combat encounters you've over optimized.
Some advice (especially if done in character) can be fine. But try to be sensitive to how much advice the player wants.
shayne merritt 797 wrote:
No. Only material in the Additional Resources document is allowed. Neither third party nor home game rules are in that document and so are not allowed.
Isn't sending a summoned creature to assuredly die in battle against your foes more or less the same thing as killing it yourself? The critter still "dies" because you brought it there. Why is it morally different if you hold the knife or the orc across the room is?
Its actually fairly rare for a summoned monster to die. The bad guys don't want to essentially waste actions when they could instead be killing PCs.
You've got to be careful with ethics and summoned monsters or you run the risk of making the spell almost useless for characters who would actually care about pain and suffering.
He has a level of dervish dancer. Only way I see to make a dex based swashbucker even playable at level 2. Still pretty bad. Worse damage AC and saves than a fighter or barbarian. Parry never actually accomplished anything. The rogue did more damage and had a higher AC.
I foolishly succumbed to temptation and played a level 2 swashbucker.
It pretty much sucked. Basically a burden on the party, barely contributing and definitely NOT filling the ftr role.
Haven't yet decided if I'll just retire the character, apply enough GM credit to get enough prestige to retrain it, or apply enough GM credit to get it to a level where it may actually be functional.
By contemporary standards (and DnD alignments embody idealized versions of thise standards) just about all historical civilizations were pretty much evil.
Ryan Costello wrote:
I've played this twice now. Neither time did we have the slightest clue that we were supposed to do anything in the cave except talk to the gillman. Once we copied down the artwork but just because we were being good pathfinders.
I have an issue with the way that some of the Season 5 faction missions are handled.
In world, it often makes no sense whatsoever that a particular action by a character only benefits characters of particular factions.
For example, in Wardstone Patrol my Taldor character did the Silver Crusade mission. But didn't get the reward even though the reward, in world, had NOTHING to do with the Silver Crusade.
I'm NOT whining because I didn't get the fairly inconsequential boon. It just made no sense and so made the world seem that little but less realistic.
Ironically, that particular mission would have been perfect as a season 1-4 mission. Makes perfect sense it would raise my prestige in the Silver Crusade but not in Taldor.
The various shamanic druids get two really powerful advantages at least in the early to mid tiers
1) summon their particular beasties as a standard
And there are some gems on the SNA lists (eg satyr)
Combine that with the fact that they can cast the spell spontaneously and its pretty powerful.
Not as powerful as a wizard of course. But at high levels a wizard or sorcerer pretty much is way more powerful than any other class :-)
Joanna Gore wrote:
Factions are much closer to what characters are. If you encounter an Andoran, you know they believe in democracy and are against slavery, which gives people a better idea of how they will react to a given situation. It gives them a motivation for adventuring, for taking the risks that they do beyond just "get the stuff
Sometimes, not always. I've got an Andoran who is a member because she is violently anti slavery. But she thinks democracy ( at least as practiced in Andor) is one of the silliest things ever.
For some of my characters their faction is important, for others it is irrelevant and chosen only because they HAVE to have one. Ironically, some f the characters who cared most were in the Lantern and Shadow Lodges.
I'm definitely in the "factions are all but irrelevant now" camp. In fact I suspect that this is deliberate and that the current plan is to totally eliminate them in season 6, doing it this way to reduce the nerd rage.
[Roll20 / G+Hangout] PFS(Module): Thornkeep - Sanctum of a Lost Age [6-8]: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 @ 10:00 AM CST US [-6 GMT]
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Why does this seem wrong to you? It seems totally reasonable to me that, in the vast majority of circumstances, a well trained animal would wait for its master to tell it what to do. I'd argue that the flaw, if it exists at all, is that this isn't a trick that can be taught.
Getting back to topic, another place there is immense GM variation is on how intelligently non and low intelligence creatures act in combat.
[Pet peeve] GMs who claim that my IQ 7 familiar is acting too intelligently while other vermin and constructs seem to completely understand flanking rules, AoO's, etc [/pet peeve]