|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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?
My play group uses the massive damage optional rule. Question: Will Breath of Life work to bring someone back from the dead that died from Massive Damage?
Thanks in Advance!
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!
I too was curious. It said that the name reserve would be part of the fulfillment process but couldn't find anywhere to reserve them.
Oh, and by the way, the Destiny's Twin reward is just the coolest thing in the world!
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?
Question: if you have taken ability damage down to, lets say a 2 Con. And then you take HP damage to -3. Are you dead because your con damage is 2 or do you still go into negs to what your Con actually is (without the damage)?
Curious if the backer survey has come out yet. I just want to be sure that I haven't missed it. The email I received when we got funded said it would be out in a few days but I have not seen anything yet.
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.
Agreed! It doesn't matter what 'reality' you are talking about, There is a line between meta-gaming and roleplaying. In this case, the player is doing it out of complete meta-gaming with no roleplaying at all. Come on, would your character really purposefully light himself on fire or would the more sensible thing to do be run the heck out of there? Unless someone came up with a really exceptional and clearly defined reason why his/her character would do this, then I would not allow this without severe penalties. Absolute garbage gaming IMO!
Our group has a question surrounding the Leadership feat. One of our players is wondering if a certain Cohort is not working out if it can be dismissed and if you could then get another one?
We couldn't find anything within the core rule books on this.
Any of you have any insight on this?
I have a fighter using the two handed fighter archetype from the advanced players guide.
Much thanks ahead of time!
Larry Lichman wrote:
The problem I have, and have with your situation, all comes down to "what goes against its' nature". Would a wizard normally go take a seat and study his spellbook in the middle of combat? Nope, would be against his 'nature' to do so and hence - new save.
I would like to bring this back up for discussion. I feel we need clarification in regards to once sentence in the spell description:
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus"
I feel this leaves it open to too much interpretation and could essentially allow for a new saving throw to break the spell after just about any command.
Let me give a few scenarios:
1. Assist us and attack your group
It would be nice to know the actual intentions of the designer of the spell. But if we can't get that, it would be nice to have an errata or at the very least a uniformed agreement amongst the community. I mean, depending how you define against your nature the spell is just about useless.
just need a clarification on this. Our group is using the death from massive damage option.
This week we had a character fail the Fort save and die from massive damage. However, after the death he still wasn't in negative hit points. Would Breath of Life still work on this character? Does your character need to be dead due to negative hit points in order for Breath of Life to work?
Thanks in advance.
I'd say those are valid possibilities. The next question that I would have is, Could you communicate a specific target (simply) if your pet had a high enough intelligence to understand? For example, say your pet had an intelligence of 4 (I think that this is the minimum intellect needed to understand speech. If not lets assume so). Could you then say, "Attack Bob." "Or Attack the Orc."?
Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows.
Attack: The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it ***will*** comply if able.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I see what your saying but I don't agree with the implementation. I guess I don't understand what 'resisting' is. You are either dominated or not, there really isn't any gray area there.
While dominated I would argue that you comply to the best of your ability, not beat around the bush to waste time so that your party has time to 'deal' with the threat and end your compulsion. If you are dominated to 'kill them' than I believe you would handle it just as you would when presented with an enemy encounter. If I was told to go kill said warrior than I wouldn't throw sand in his eyes and hope that I aggravate him to death, I'm going to go mess him up, as fast and efficient as possible.
Actually, my point was more than relevant to the current situation. And my point being, this is game --not real life--. In game, there are actual rules that dictate what an animal will do with a command (handle animal). In real life, as was your example, I don't get to roll my handle animal skill to influence the actions of my domestic animal.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Heck, dominating the mage and telling him to 'kill your friends' might allow the resisting character to pelt his friends with acid splash. He is following the order, just not effectively.
You see, this I disagree with. If you are going to kill someone, than you are going to get down to doing it, not beat around the bush. This should be the case dominated or not.
So when was the last time you put on a suit of full plate armor, entered the abyss on a crusade for your God, and got your head lopped off by a demon and then resurrected by a friend, after they collected your body and teleported you all back to earth?
If you are dominated and ordered to attack your party, than that is exactly what you are going to do. And you are going to do it to the best of your ability (which would include ordering your animal companion to attack, along with any other tools and tricks you have at your disposal and would use normally against an enemy).
As far as what the animal companion would do? It would do exactly what its' master told it to do. I could see that this would ESPECIALLY be the case if the animal companions intelligence is 3 or less. They are animal after all.
This is what a player would expect if they dominated an enemy druid so why shouldn't a player expect this to be the case if the DM used this on a player. I'm not one for a player or a DM pulling punches (I absolutely despise it actually). If I win or lose I want to know that I did so by playing to the best of my ability against an opponent that played to the best of his/hers. I would go one step further in fact (if your player is trying to find a loop hole to NOT do the best they can or pull punches in a scenario such as this than the DM should call them on it and if it is a real problem than take control of their character during this time).
This is the highest level I have ever gotten a druid and I'm looking for some advice from some of you druid vets out there.
Now that I am level 8 I can Beast Shape 3, Elemental Body 2, Plant Form 1.
I want to hear some recommendations from some of you as good DPS choices for forms to shape shift in to now. Once I hit 6th level I was having fun as a Dire Lion, especially seeing as my animal companion is a Lion.
I am looking specifically for a good combo of number of attacks and damage.
Thanks for the suggestions!
If I take the Weapon Focus feat could I choose natural attacks as a weapon type or does it have to be specified as claw or bite ect.?
Reason why I am asking is I would like to take Weapon Focus and have it be usable while I am wild shaped into something as a druid. What would be the best way to do this?
Thanks for the advice, answers
I am new to playing a druid and was wondering if some of you Druid veterans could keep me honest.
Specifically, I am confused as to what stats/abilities/skills/ect. that I use when I wild shape. Am I using everything from the new form or a mix of my stats and the new form? Anyone able to give me the quick and dirty so that I know what I am doing when I wild shape.
Thanks so much!
So how exactly is the summoner worse off than the wizard/sorcerer?
Sure summoner might be able to cast many more a day, BUT can only have one out at a time. Wizard/Sorcerer could have as many out as they wish.
That is how they are better off
I say fix summon monster and the class is perfect. And I am not saying back to where it was either. Change it enough so that it gives the impression that Summoners really are masters of summoning. As it is now they are worse off than a wizard/conjurer/sorc. Those classes could at least cast multiple summon monsters in combat if they had it prepared/memorized or even easier in the case of a sorc.
Here are my suggestions:
1. Cast as a Standard Action, Duration 1 minute/lvl, Only 1 can be out at a time if cast using the Spell Like Ability. (You can cast it out of your spells known in addition, however; it functions as the spell with regard to duration, ect.)
2. Cast as a Standard Action, Duration 2 rounds/lvl, Only 1 can be out at a time if cast using the Spell Like Ability. (You can cast it out of your spells known in addition, however; it functions as the spell with regard to duration, ect.)
3. Cast as a Standard Action, Duration as spell
4. Cast as spell, Duration 1 minute/lvl
Personally, I like option 1 and 2 the best.
Omas Abid wrote:
I couldn't agree with you more! I never got a response from a rules question from a developer over at wotc. I have always relied on the community to clear up any questions that I have, and I still do rely on the community, but it was awesome to see a developer reply!
I am a bit confused with a druid's animal companion attacks and was wondering if anyone could help me out with the rule.
I thought that I read that Animal Companions use thier full attack. So for a Large Cat that would be 1 bit and 2 claws. However, animal companions also dont get multi attack until level 9. So does this mean that a Large Cat's other two attacks would both be at a -5?