|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Don't forget that jumping includes a bonus if speed is greater than 30.
Thank you, Irori, for the lesson in humility. Boasting like that was prideful and I deserved what I got. :-)
I was curious so I took a look at the number of posts for the ACG playtest as opposed to the Occult Playtest.
There were over twice as many posts for the ACG playtest.
3665 vs 1285 in General Discussion
Admittedly comments are still coming in for the Occult Playtest. But the rate is significantly slowing down now that the playtest is over.
Given that the ACG seems to be generally (and Paizo has officially acknowledged this) NOT considered a success story in terms of how well balanced, editted, etc the book is the fact that less than 1/2 the playtesting was done for the Occult Playtest speaks volumes.
David Neilson wrote:
For me, the technologist feat WAS a significant concern.
I wanted to play a sort of technology oriented character. A character who understood normal tech (ie, a high knowledge engineering). But I was dissuaded when I found I'd have to waste a feat that did NOT match the character and buy a splat book I had zero interest in and, even then, she would only be useful in an unknown number of scenarios.
I think the whole technology thing was seriously mishandled.
I'm active enough on the boards to realize it was a minor glitch in a season that I am currently liking but I'm not at all surprised that others got turned off and didn't realize the issue was mostly irrelevant
I barely participated in the playtest, and dropped out completely when it became clear that the playtest wasn't going to be updated.
It was very obvious that the playtest characters were underpowered and in dire need of supporting feats, magic, etc. While they were playable at low levels they were going to become very problematic very quickly.
So I decided not to play past level 1 and lock in the character. Rebuilt the character completely.
I wasn't paying very close attention to all the classes, but from what I saw there was almost no mid to high level playtesting occurring. I'm quite frankly amazed that the design team got sufficient feedback. And, to be brutaly honest, appalled.
I'll echo some of the concerns above. The playtest needed to be longer, there needed to be rebuild options (achievable ones), and there needed to be some way to encourage higher level play.
Locally the playtest was almost completely a non event. As opposed to the ACG play test which had much more local participation.
When the characters come up with and execute a good plan that will trivialize/sidestep an encounter (especially the end encounter) I ask the players what they want me to do (and am very happy with any response).
Generally the players are happy to reap the rewards of their cleverness but from time to time they decide that they WANT a tougher fight, even though I'm very clear that if they choose the fight and fail they fail
GM Lamplighter wrote:
While a lot of Venture Captains arguably ARE that incompetent hopefully most of them realize that ACTUAL pathfinders are very, very often fairly specialized characters and at least TRY to match skill sets with the mission.
Double Barrel Pistols + TWF + Rapid Shot + Quick Draw + Gun Twirling = 10 attacks at 9th level Trench Fighter?
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
As far as I can recall (first movie only) they basically kept to the usual model in movies set in that era. Fire a gun, maybe draw and fire a second, then use swords for the real fighting.
Double Barrel Pistols + TWF + Rapid Shot + Quick Draw + Gun Twirling = 10 attacks at 9th level Trench Fighter?
Please tell me which movie allows 10 shots in 6 seconds with muzzle loading double barreled guns. This is a level of movie magic that even Feng Shui doesn't allow.
But yeah, for some of us some aspects of the game do have to mirror reality more than other aspects. One of the reasons that Earthdawn worked so well for some of us is because the "martials" were explicitly every bit as magical as the spell casters. As long as they are supposed to NOT be magical then some vague sanity rules SHOULD apply. "No more unrealistic than Action Adventure movies" is a standard I can live with. "Less realistic than superhero movies" isn't.
One thing I've often wondered about is whether all GMs would accept all of them. Some of the ones that I've received aren't really signed, the GM has just typed in their name or initials.
Its pretty much only a hypothetical concern, at least locally. The chance of a local GM rejecting such a chronicle sheet is essentially 0 (as I think it should be. Rejecting such a sheet is tantamount to accusing the player of cheating).
Has anybody ever had a problem with this?
Basically, I want
I enjoy very different things with different groups and scenarios. Sometimes I enjoy playing the NPCs, sometimes I enjoy creating an interesting tactical challenge, sometimes I enjoy trying to herd cats without getting scratched (I generally love it when the players go off the rails).
Much of the time I HATE overpowered twinked characters that blow through the scenario, ESPECIALLY when the twink is dominating the table. But not always. Sometimes it can be hilarious, sometimes it means we can get the boring combat stuff out of the way and get onto something interesting. But when the scenario is mostly combat and all the combats end as soon as the twink acts then I quickly get bored.
@Jiggy - I am not saying all powerful characters are twinked out game breakers, but lots of them are. I am firmly of the opinion that overpowered characters played to the hilt are the biggest problem PFS faces. They've come very close to driving me from PFS several times and HAVE caused some local GMs to give up running games.
I'd recommend giving some notice. We're generally an honor system campaign, which means that it sometimes takes looking through some things to double check every bonus.
I'd just like to emphasize this. If this hasn't been part of the local culture you should give people advance warning. Yes, they SHOULD have their paperwork up to date but many won't and will likely be peeved at being turned away from games they were allowed into the week before. Yes, they should NOT be upset but, human nature being what it is, they WILL be.
Heck, many will probably honestly not realize they're breaking the rules.
Cave Mother wrote:
Depends which high minded character :-). Some of them would make VERY good force multipliers for the Trogs :-) :-). Bards for the win.
As to other perspectives, sure. But I got the strong impression that no character thought it was "RIGHT" to attack, just expedient/fun/rewarding. That people were looking for an excuse. Maybe I was wrong and other characters saw the situation as ethically different than I did.
The Adventure Paths, Emerald Spire and Thornkeep also fit the bill
I'm glad that I played this with the character that I did. Many of my characters would have been SERIOUSLY unhappy with any attempts to kill the Trogs. Including things like the actions such as I described or YogoZuno describes which were clearly very likely to set the Trogs off.
I've got at least a couple of characters who would react to the experimentation we did with "stop that. Now. Otherwise, I am leaving now. If I was allowed, I'd side with the Trogs if your reckless experiments cause them to attack".
When we played it we sort of stumbled into combat.
We dealt peacefully with the Trogs and figured out that we needed to put the doors into the slots to turn off the magnet. Managed to convince the one Trog that it was a fine idea, that it would enable them to understand their God better. When the last door went in and the lights went out the Trogs, understandably, panicked and started coming towards us aggressively. The dwarf beat me on initiative, took a readied action to strike with his reach weapon. I then tried diplomacy once again and probably succeeded. But the GM had the Trogs advance (making it clear that they were not actually attacking). The player of the dwarf decided that his character would treat that as hostile and so struck the Trog. Combat to the death (with absolutely no attempt at doing non lethal) then ensued.
So, not quite evil on our part. Seriously non good but not quite evil.
But I did get the impression that some of the other players were basically looking for an excuse to start the slaughter.
My character didn't really care all that much (he is NOT good). Saw no reason to kill the Trogs but wasn't massively upset when the idiot dwarf (hey, he is an elf. That is what he thought :-)) started the fight. And at that point there really was no choice.
I was surprised how easy the fight was. 5 PCs, all the Trogs were basically together, party average was about L4, and it was still essentially a cake walk.
Wheldrake (and others) look back on some of the terrible balance issues of early editions with great affection.
Lots of people defend the variation in power between classes
Otherwise, you run the risk of not being able to play. Honestly, as someone who does alot of gaming online, I would rather take the hour or two of my time to get compliant with the rules than to run the risk of missing out on hours of gaming.
I have so far missed exactly 0 games because my chronicles aren't online. Out of something on the rough order of 50 online games (a guess, I didn't count).
As I said, I'm aware of the risk and willing to lose a game if necessary.
Its nice that you took a different option but that hardly invalidates my option nor gives you the right to dictate how I should spend my time.
Rachel Hill wrote:
My certs are quite well organized. But given that I play live games I use paper (printing out all my electronic ones).
Wanting to know what scenarios I've played I totally understand. That information I can provide (and occasionally have). Just not in the form of certs :-)
David Bowles wrote:
Well, unless they're paladins with an Animal Companion, of course :-) :-) :-).
I'm "that" GM. I *have* asked for chronicle sheets.
That is absolutely your right.
But over half my chronicle sheets are paper only. Even the ones I received in online games I likely no longer have or can't conveniently find the electronic version.
So I'd have to scan all my sheets in. Just not worth the bother to me. I'd rather not play (in general, I'm sure there are exceptions).
I WILL provide an online ITS on request. I use my own form so it lists all scenarios played in order, shows money and fame gained. So has most of the information on the chronicle sheets. Not the same, I know.
Quite frankly, given how absurdly trivial it is to cheat anyway, I do think that PFS has significantly more paperwork than necessary. But that is a topic for another discussion.
I dunno if I'd go so far as to say "unreasonable hatred". It could just be a bit inflexible mindset; "tigers going into the opera is ridiculous; therefore it's just not going to happen". Rigid, but not malicious.
As a GM I do like to introduce SOME element of reasonableness to the world, even when not explicitly called for. I think the GM was definitely within their rights making the tiger an issue and not just quietly allowing it in. Where I think they crossed the line was in automatically disallowing all attempts to get it in.
But we all make mistakes. Making a mistake doesn't make a GM bad. I'm NOT suggesting that the GM did anything more than make a bad call at the time. Which we ALL do.
I've yet to have an online GM ask to see scanned chronicle sheets. If one asked I'd quite likely decide it was too much hassle and politely bow out of the game.
Once or twice I've provided pdf's of my character sheets (I use Herolab so this is trivial for me).
Basically, the vast majority of games rely on trust with the very occasional bit of "how did you get that?" thrown in. Pretty much like most live games, at least locally.
When I played it one of the PCs brought in his animal companion (a wolf, IIRC).
Personally, I think that the GM was way out of line to flat out disallow any and all attempts to bring Pumpkin in. Bribes, bluff, etc all should have had at least a chance of working. Pumpkin is still only young, Taldor has the kind of nobility that WOULD have young tigers as pets, and in a combat intensive scenario denying a character a significant part of their combat capability is something that should be done only when clearly called out by the scenario.
Its admittedly not absolutely clear cut but I think that you have a strong enough case that you could reasonably bring it up with your local VO.
Could you share which scenario this was? It sounds to me like the GM may have been in error in shutting down all your attempts to bring Pumpkin along. While this isn't usually a huge deal, when it results in character death it becomes a big deal. You may be able to get the death reversed.
Pup shape is short duration but may work in some situations. Vanish may work also
I mostly agree with you but I think that you're going a LITTLE too far. Part of the GMs responsibility in PFS (and in most home games) is to do at least a little enforcement of the alignment rules.
So, Situation C :
Player: After barring the doors so none of the poor children can escape my paladin burns down the orphanage.
GM: WTF? You do realize that there are dozens of innocent children inside and you have absolutely no reason to do this, right? That its an evil act, right?
Player: Nah, I'm a Paladin of Sarenrae so fire is holy to me. The kids will all go to their appropriate place. Not evil. Holy fire is always good.
GM: I disagree. That is an evil act. You do it and you'll fall.
There are some actions so egregious and some justifications so thin and some players so clueless that the GM MUST step in.
If new races were going to be added, we would find out just before the next iteration of the Guide, like we did this year with Nagaji, Kitsune, and Wayang.
While you're quite right that is when we'd officially know there are occassionally leaks about their intentions.
So, to answer the OP : No such rumour has reached this neck of the woods. Catfolk specifically seems quite unlikely to be completely opened up (Its too popular and Mike would almost certainly make it a boon before he completely opened it up). And, in my experience, most rumours one hears on the internet are mostly or completely false.
I've mostly looked at the Occultist. As it is right now it is just too weak after about level 7 or so. Sufficiently so that I haven't played it past level 1 (PFS) as I don't want to be unable to change the character.
It also seems to me that there are almost no play testing reports at mid to high levels. And that is where the issues are (I'm not alone in thinking that many of the classes scale poorly).
The fact that Paizo thinks it is getting the play testing it needs surprises me.
On the other hand, I kinda hope that everything is underpowered when released. ACG had far too many power boosts for my taste. So maybe the fact that Paizo is happy with underpowered stuff is a good thing :-)
As I said above, its unclear to me. The closest thing that I found is from the PFS FAQ.
"Magic items or spellcasting services must be purchased as listed in the Core Rulebook, including wands and scrolls. You may not apply metamagic feats when purchasing magic items or spellcasting services. The only exception is when the item or service is specifically listed as a reward on a Chronicle sheet."
My argument is :
1) spellcasting services and magic items have the same rules
Therefore, spellcasting services follow the same rule as magic items.
A different argument is that the Ioun torch and Everburning torches already exist as magic items and so that is what the PCs must purchase.
At a minimum expect table variation. I won't allow it at any table I run unless the player has it from a PC together with a signed chronicle sheet indicating when and from whom he got it (characters who can actually cast it are an exception to that). My rationale for that is above.
In the Guide to Organized play it lists what you can buy. There are no clerical cast continual flame items in any legal resource as far as I am aware.
So that leaves spellcasting services. Although it is not clear I'd say the FAQ on meta magic combined with the restrictions on consumables makes it clear that the intent is you buy spellcasting services as you buy consumables, ie lowest caster level and you have to pick wizard over cleric.
Its a moderately moot point since getting a PC cleric to cast isn't usually an onerous chore and one REALLY wants the heightened version anyway (which is clearly disallowed)
They CAN be provided by a fellow party member, though (you have to pay for the spell component cost but they can do the spellcasting for free).
Incredibly valuable, especially if the cleric has the Heighten feat
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
But it only happened because I asked everyone to think about their alignment before they decided.
I mostly agree with what you're saying but please don't take it too far.
Alignment is only one part of a characters motivations. Different characters of mine would react to different situationd quite differently despite having the same alignment on their character sheet. Some of that difference is related to things like dieties worshipped and ethnic background but some isn't.
For example, my NG varisian has a very forgiving attitude to minor crime while my N cleric of Abadar doesn't.
Asking people to think about "what their character would do" seems much better to me than asking about their alignments. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about an ethically murky situation
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm probably unusual but I prefer "old fart". Grognard is fine too :-)\
And one of the pleasures of getting old is being allowed to be a curmudgeon. So grognard DEFINITELY fits (using that definition above)
In fairness, it IS part of our job to police alignments in general and clerics/paladins/druids etc in particular. The Guide explicitly tells us that.
As I said up thread, PFS works ONLY if we are very forgiving in that policing. But there are some violations so egregious that the GM absolutely IS expected to intervene.
To be explicit, I think that this particular case isn't even close to the line where the GM should intervene. But that line DOES exist and I HAVE seen it crossed.
Quark Blast wrote:
Gygax liked Moorcock who had Law and Chaos. So D&D had Law and Chaos. IIRC it was basically that simple. Good and evil came later
And if the OP had caused paladins to fall and/or charged them for an atonement it would very likely have been overturned by the local VOs. As this thread shows, there is near universal consensus that the OP was way out of line.
Not to mention the fact that it is likely that some local authority will probably be having a chat with the OP with a view to making sure it doesn't happen again
[Pedantic mode]This is a common belief but it is actually incorrect. A great many Nazi actions were against the law. But they controlled the legal system and so were functionally above the law[/pedantic mode]