|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Iseult Eleos wrote:
The script doesn't always work. We have someone who had this issue last night and still cannot log in, he has submitted an email regarding it, hoping to get a response to play today :(
That happened to me yesterday afternoon. Spoke to Ryan and emailed customer support. Ryan confirmed that the script had broke and the team was working on it. Within a couple of hours the script had been fixed and I was back in the game.
Now that is service! It was a Sunday!
Freevale has withdrawn from the War of Towers Non Aggression Pact. We still participate in The Northern Coalition Non Aggression Pact.
Gpunk - This is VERY good to hear. I was having a very hard time coming to terms with a CN settlement following a NAP such as the WoT NAP. Now go and get your sister city (Aragon) to do the same :p
I'm sorry, let me reconstruct this for you seeing as you quoted me out of context....
I've never been a fan of that 'popular kids' clique.
By definition, just about any form of social interactions can be considered a clique (companies included); but hey, let me pass the trolling baton on to you.
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
Likewise :) If I could only convince you of the error in your ways and have you leave Golgotha for AGC :p
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
I've always rebelled against the 'popular kids'. Although Im not a total non-conformist, I've never been a fan of cliques.
My allegiance is with AGC, regardless where that takes us.
I think this is exactly what we have to do, although I might also add 'continue with current goals that can be achieved within the current mechanics of the game'
We are watching, and for now there are some, if they so choose, that can influence certain decisions without repercussion because the mechanics of the game do now allow for such. When that environment is no longer in play, those that wield the current power (and abuse it) will be judged, tried, and punished.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
We will be refreshing that tree of liberty when the time is right.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
Hello, I'm Ronyel and I approve these messages.
Oh and I remember reading that NAP during Alpha and I threw up in my mouth a little. I do not speak for AGC; however, if you are Golgothan, your towers are not safe!
Description of bluff: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/bluff
Situation: I attempted to convince a fellow party member that another PC was actually an impostor. (It was a unique situation where my alignment was briefly turned CE. We recently had a couple of party deaths coincide with assassin attacks and a new PC entering our party claiming to be a follower of Desna, which was true, but some of the party members already had doubts - all role-play stuff)
I successfully bluff the party member convincing them that this new party member is actually an impostor and could be working for the assassins.
A second party member made his sense motive and was not convinced.
The second party member who was not convinced offered to the convinced party member that he did not believe me. The convinced party member than decided to believe the non-convinced party member rather than accept what I was saying was true under the Bluff description. This was within 1 round and no roll was made to 're-convince' the convinced party member that I was lying.
How would you suggest handling this situation? There is not an actual duration on how long you would believe nor does it say anything about how to end the bluff and determine truth.
Any thoughts would be great!
Sooooo I'm pretty excited! After almost a year in the making, I've launched my very first game on Kickstarter and just had to share the excitement with you all my fellow pathfinder enthusiasts:
RE:VERSUS is a family friendly card game where you are in a race against your opponent to be the first to score 100 points. While scoring your own points using unique double faced cards, you are also stealing points from your opponent, manipulating the cards in your opponent’s hand, and even switching points with your opponent.
I'd love to hear what you all think. Feedback is most certainly appreciated. Feel free to ask any questions you like too!
I have the same concerns. I really like the system; however, I found myself asking the question - what if I wanted to make an evil character, settlement, company. Shouldn't those same systems that work for the good aligned apply to the evil aligned? I don't think a good settlement should be any more inherently better than an evil one just by alignment. Sure, some mechanics might work better but I'd expect the same in evil settlements.
For example, maybe the quality of buildings and services are better in a good aligned settlement but maybe the speed of creating buildings/services are faster in evil settlements.
Now, I'm not planning on playing evil but I also don't want to be given an advantage just because I chose to select a certain alignment.
Chris Mullican wrote:
Honestly, I love that these are 'secret' missions. It encourages exploration, thoughtful expeditions, and cooperation.
My only concern now is that there isn't really a distinction of faction. I realize that before the only thing that really told you are apart, faction-wise, were the faction missions. But now that is gone so Im wondering what do we have as players to differentiate ourselves (factions)?
Have to say that I just love what you are doing here for PvP. I am not typically a PvPer and I have to say that I am rather excited for the implementation of this kind of PvP. Factional Conflict -- Super nice touch!!
Question: When compnay-v-company feuding for a particular landmark in a hex, lets just say a mine or tower, is it possible for a company to assume possession of that landmark as an outcome of a feud or does a company have to wage war against the settlement in order to gain control of that particular landmark?
Can I just tell you how happy I am with this decision! I have longed for the days pre-2004 when and MMO truly was an MMO (Massively MULTIPLAYER). The days where, sure you could solo if you like, but it really is to your advantage to group up with others to accomplish goals together.
IMO the time savings you get from being solo (jumping in and playing/doing something right away) are not worth the benefits of overcoming obstacles, obtaining something truly rare and unique (because you can only do so with the help of others), relying on one another to survive and push further and further in a given area of content, coming up with ways to overcome truly challenging content, etc.
And this all coming from a true Introvert!
Deliver (DC 15): The animal takes an object (one you or an ally gives it, or that it recovers with the fetch trick) to a place or person you indicate. If you indicate a place, the animal drops the item and returns to you. If you indicate a person, the animal stays adjacent to the person until the item is taken. (Retrieving an item from an animal using the deliver trick is a move action.)
Question: No where can I find in the rules does it say you need to show the animal where the person or place is. The animal takes it to the person or place you indicate. So if you were a new arrival in a town and instruct an animal to deliver s message to a guard, could the animal do that?
Finally, after so many years, an MMO Developer gets it! MMO - Massively MULTIPLAYER Online as opposed to MSO Massively SOLO Online.
Seriously though, every blog post I read, it is as if someone is reading my thoughts on how I would want to build an MMO.
My only problem now is that I have so many ideas for a charter company....Havesting Corps anyone??
When I think theme park, I think content-on-rails. A game design that takes you on a linear journey through the game world. Generally, players share the same experience from the beginning of their character's existence until 'end game'.
In traditional sandbox, the same experience isnt necessarily shared. Adventure is defined more by what kinds of content the player wants to consume rather than what is dictated within the confines of what is available at a given level.
In either case; however, PvE content could be scaled in risk vs reward, based on such parameters as party size. I hadn't explored the thought of taking this concept and applying it to harvesting/crafting but I could see gaining benefits from doing such in a group setting. As it applies to more traditional combat encounters, it wouldn't matter much if you were consuming this content in a theme-park or a sandbox.
If there is one thing that I believe much of the MMO Community can agree upon is that it is difficult to develop game that can please everyone. The risk of trying to do so can result in a game that feels uncommitted; one that tries to offer a balance of too many play styles and thus never truly excels at any one thing.
The one item that really sticks out to me and that shows up on most all MMO Community forums pre-launch is the ever exhausted debate between casual and hardcore players/content. I’ve been playing MMOs since the spring of 2000, perhaps not as long as some, but I have certainly been around the block long enough to see many of these trends in the industry. Likewise, I have played my fair share of MMOs – too many to probably remember every title that I have given a go.
Recently, I was playing the Diablo 3 beta and saw some game designs that I thought if implemented into an MMO could perhaps come closer to bridging the gap. One thing that I noticed from playing this, ‘soon to be released’, game is that encounters dynamically scale in difficulty depending on group size. So for example, I can log in and start playing the game right away, I don’t have to wait for anyone else to enjoy the game I am paying for; and if I wish, I can play the game completely solo. If friends of mine log in, I can invite them to my group, and instantly the encounters scale in challenge. The more people who join my group, the more challenging the encounter. So if my play style is group oriented, the game would support this as well.
To go along with this philosophy, the more challenging the encounter (the more people I have in my group), then the better chance at greater rewards. I worded it this way because I know that at first glance, those who prefer soloing might be put off by the fact that they would still have to group to get the best rewards. I don’t think this has to be the case, there could be a smaller chance for greater rewards while soloing. But certainly, the chance of greater rewards would go to those who take more risk. I think this design could fit well into the design philosophy in what we have read in Ryan’s latest blog, under Security, Risk and Reward.
Live on the Seacoast of NH here. I have been running private home scenario games in Rochester NH and Nashua NH, well...just started really. I am on my 5th run.
Don - I got to play under you at the special event at TotalCon this year. Will you be making a show at TotalCon 2012? My group will be showing again, and I may even opt to run a few games myself.
WRoy - thanks, that is a good find. I hadn't realized that myself.
I have a further question for you to ponder. My group was contemplating using a Storm Druid's SP ability Storm Burst against the swarm.
Here is the description:
Storm Burst (Sp): As a standard action, you can create a storm burst targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The storm burst deals 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point for every two cleric levels you possess. In addition, the target is buffeted by winds and rain, causing it to take a –2 penalty on attack rolls for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Now my interpretation, based on that it is not a spell and thus doesn't have a statblock AND based on the example you provided of the Ray of Frost spell, is that the Storm Burst ability would not work because it states in the description: targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. Where the Ray of Frost clearly is an effect, not a target, that does damage to a target based on a ranged touch.
In addition, I would have to rule that the winds and rain have no effect on the swarm because the only listed effect of the wind and rain is that it causes the target to take a -2 penalty on attack roll, where a swarm doesn't have an attack roll.
The only real low-level swarm that is immune to weapon damage is the spider swarm, and that should be outrunnable in most situations.
My party ran into a swarm of flesh eating cockroaches from beastiary 2. The party was level one. They are immune to weapon damage and have a fly speed of 30. Tricky little buggers!
If you are going into an area where you could expect swarms and don't have a caster who can deal elemental and/or area damage, pick up some flasks of acid or alchemist's fire. They're cheap and gain the +50% damage bonus.
I think the point that the OP is trying to make is, if you don't have this stuff with you at the time, then you are most assuredly screwed unless you can run for it.
Sure we can sit around and think of all the stuff you could buy to deal with a swarm, but unless you have it geared when you encounter one than all that doesn't matter.
I am thinking of running my first module for society play. I have chosen Mask of the Living God.
In the Pathfinder Module: Mask of the Living God Pathfinder Organized Play PDF that details the rules for running the module in Pathfinder Society it says the following:
Conditions, Death, and Expendables
I am a bit confused about the above statement as it applies to how society scenarios are typically run.
Is this really saying that if your society PC dies within this module than he actually did not die?
Are society PCs getting to use the expendables that they have for free, and in fact, make free purchases?
I am sure that I am totally missing something here and that my above questions are not the case but I thought it best to come here for an answer to my question rather than making any assumptions.
Thanks in advance!
So Synthesist and the reach evolution. This is fairly basic, choose your claws and you can reach with your claws.
What about then giving an Synth eidilon a weapon? Normally, without the evolution, an eidilon can not use weapons, however while fused they get your feats. So if a summoner is proficient with all simple weapons, would then the fused character be able to reach with a simple weapon?
This is a discussion that my friends and I are having. My thought (right or wrong) is that a summoner gains proficiency with all simple weapons and does not gain a weapon proficiency feat, therefore the eidilon can not use a simple weapon unless they have the evolution allowing them to.
Curious if there are rules for being able to extract poison from monsters you have recently killed who use it?
For example, my party recently killed some giant scorpions. I am a poisoner rogue. The DM allowed me to use my Craft Alchemy skill to extract it because we couldn't find any rules for it during the game.
I told the DM I would come here and pose the question in case we over looked something and there is a rule out there for it.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.