Year of the Sky Key Q&A

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you brought melee besides 2 handed.. you're gonna die.

Well, that explains it. My halberd-wielding inquisitor cleaved 6-01 to pieces.

And my crypt-breaker alchemist kept things in 6-03 from being able to pile on.

It's possible you played hardness wrong? Bombs are reduced by hardness.

It's possible you played hardness wrong? Bombs are reduced by hardness.

Crypt-breakers deal d8s to constructs, and the damage was my secondary objective.

The tanglefoot effect stopped a lot of them in their tracks, and debuffed the attacks they did get off.

Edit: Minor thing, I misremembered the scenario number. It was 6-02 that I ran my alchemist through. I'll be putting him through 6-03 when I get a chance.

Andrew Christian wrote:

andreww wrote:

Oh well, guess I continue to avoid season 6.

How many times do people have to say that Season 6 is not going to be 100% tech based. That there will just be a handful of scenarios that are tech based, and we saw a large portion of those with the first 3 scenarios?

It's more that season 6 is indescribably lethal for little reason other than lethality. It's not fun lethal like the waking rune or warned lethal like bonekeep. It's stupid under CR'ed monsters grindy dangerous 1 round to negative con encounters (Looking at you 6-01, 6-02) with weak RP attached to it.

The currently released Season 6s would be terrible if they had nothing to do with tech.

I haven't noticed Season 6 being particularly lethal.

I've run two Season 6 games, and the only deaths that happened were due to a party composition that would've died in pretty much any other season just as quickly.

These three new scenarios haven't been particularly deadly. Now #4-01, #4-02 and #4-03, that was a deadly season opener. Last season started with a hellwasp swarm, an under-cr'd dragon which nobody ran correctly and a social event, all of which claimed plenty of lives. It's a perception thing, I guess.

I was in Trial by Machine. Even in a 7-man party, I felt like my two-hand-raging-Power-Attack and my rage-boosted 2nd-level hit points were very nearly the only reason we survived. And that's with a GM who seemed very UNinterested in PC deaths. With a sterner GM or more moderate damage output, I think we'd have all died. Possibly twice.

If you brought melee besides 2 handed.. you're gonna die.

Funny, my Dervish-Dancing swashbuckler only had problems in 6-02 in the one encounter where using a slashing or piercing weapon is a problem... until a party member was dying and literally one round from being out-right dead, and I just said "screw it" and started slicing crap up.

As soon as I started using my scimitar (one-handed, mind you), the things died pretty quick, and everybody lived.

Hardness 10 should never be thrown against 1st level PCs. Period.

It's as bad as using Shadows.

Hardness 10 should never be thrown against 1st level PCs. Period.

It's as bad as using Shadows.

Quite technically, it isn't. The things in 6-01 are Hardness 5 on low tier. You only have to deal with Hardness 10 if you play out of tier, which is usually pretty lethal in 1-5 scenarios anyhow.

Hardness 10 should never be thrown against 1st level PCs. Period.

It's as bad as using Shadows.

Or a Wight...

Good to see that you're starting to work through the mountains of inconsistencies and problems in the ACG. There's a lot more though so don't stop now.

I still think that the correct solution to the problems with the "tech obfuscation" rules would have been to add a boon to the chronicle of each scenario involving tech which basically gives the benefits of Technologist. That way you would have been able to simulate the way that tech would interact in a real campaign, where the characters would presumably become familiar with it after encountering it.

Please put that text about Technologist in a sidebar next to every use of Numerian tech in a scenario, and emphasize the fact that characters should still have a way to succeed at the mission. Otherwise we are going to get all sorts of table variation and nonsense about metagaming whenever tech appears in a scenario.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you brought melee besides 2 handed.. you're gonna die.

Funny, my Dervish-Dancing swashbuckler only had problems in 6-02 in the one encounter where using a slashing or piercing weapon is a problem... until a party member was dying and literally one round from being out-right dead, and I just said "screw it" and started slicing crap up.

As soon as I started using my scimitar (one-handed, mind you), the things died pretty quick, and everybody lived.

So your rebutal is.. No, because my dm rolled 1 lower on the die than he could have

I do think the "puzzle solving" for dealing with tech without the feat has a whiff of metagaming, although arguably PCs could come up with some of the solutions themselves.

We didn't have any major trouble with 6-01, but then we had multiple 2H warriors. Hardness just means "hit harder, all at once". The other party that played the next day under the same GM had a lot of trouble because they had all the "thousand cuts" flurry type warriors. With Pummeling Style, even they should be able to handle it. I heard they eventually did it by grappling the bots and tying them up. Also, if you don't know that you can end Fascinate by giving an affected PC a slap in the face, it becomes much scarier. Spending a standard action to bring another PC back into the fight isn't just being considerate of that player, it's tactically sound.

6-02 was by far the heaviest of the three we played. We played 6-02 hight tier with the same PCs we used on 6-03 low tier the day before, and 6-02 was much harsher. There's plenty of really scary things in 6-03, but a much lower % of robots, so adamantine/2H isn't the thing that dominates the entire adventure. That said, by the time we got to 6-02 we had three melee martials, all 2H, two of them adamantine. It was hard-fought but we felt well-equipped for it. (The one without adamantine was an abyssal bloodrager that just did obscene damage without adamantine, which also works. And his 20ft reach with polearms helped a lot in area control.) The same weekend, same GM, another party nearly TPKed in 6-02; they were mostly the same people who had a hard time with 6-01.

An issue I do have with robots: they have a LOT of defences. Most monsters have some defences but not against everything, so there's more diverse tactics that work. Robots have a lot of construct-based immunities, aren't stupid enough to kite like you might with some golems, have ranged attacks, have hardness instead of DR so energy attacks don't work so well - I think I need to actually go read their stats to find something else than adamantine/2H that will work well.

This is super helpful, thanks John!

andreww wrote:

Oh well, guess I continue to avoid season 6.

How many times do people have to say that Season 6 is not going to be 100% tech based. That there will just be a handful of scenarios that are tech based, and we saw a large portion of those with the first 3 scenarios?

Sure, and that would be fine if any scenario which involved tech came with a big sign which read "this scenario forces you to engage with the s!&$ty technology rules" but they dont so you are left either rolling the dice or reading through the reviews beforehand which is less than ideal.

ShakaUVM wrote:

Hardness 10 should never be thrown against 1st level PCs. Period.

It's as bad as using Shadows.

Or a Wight...

Hey, I know! Why not both... in the same dungeon! :D

I frikkin' love that dungeon. ^_^

Yeah, the Technologist entry doesn't really answer the question very well. But thanks for the rest of it.

•Substitute the term "shaman" anywhere the term "druid" appears.

Any thoughts on why Shaman does not have a retraining synergy with either of the classes they are hybrid of? I know in playtest that the druid spell list was used but since that was changed why would the class have retraining synergy with either witch or oracle?

I am surprised they did not add the technologist feat as a boon that if you own the book use can use it for that character.

Now the characters can use this 3+ scenario feat without a tax and....

Bam! book sales!

Yeah, the Technologist entry doesn't really answer the question very well. But thanks for the rest of it.

The clarification of the technologist feat requires the technologist feat to understand.

But I agree, mechanically I can't make heads or tails of the answer in the case the technologist feat is not present. Are the skill checks still possible, but the GMs job is to interpret a more vague/non-technological answer that relates the same general information. Or meta-game on a skill check that the character bloopled enough bleeps to activate the "mysterious artefact." And in either of those cases the DC is the same or different? Or run a stop watch until enough frustration time has elapsed and hand wave on wards?

Moveenar, Shaman do have retraining synergy with Oracles, they're on the druid list (and vice versa.) I'm hoping not adding Witch to the list is just an oversight.

Skill checks aren't possible, since you need the Technologist feat to make those. But, just because you can't make skill checks doesn't mean you can't experiment.

Numbered keypad? I type in some numbers, what happens? [GM Answer: if they get the right number, it works. Otherwise, ...]
Firearm-shaped thing with trigger? I point it at a bad guy and pull the trigger, what happens? [GM answer: it fires, using non-proficiency penalty and any other modifiers.]
Big metal guy attacking me, I don't know what its DR is, but I know my charm spells don't work on other constructs so I'll try something else. I hit it with my cold iron mace, what happens? [GM answer: adjuscate using hardness/DR rules as needed.]
Strange tech device with wires and buttons? Dunno, what happens if I cut the red one? [GM answer: disable device doesn't work untrained, so probably bad things happen.]

thistledown wrote:

Yeah, the Technologist entry doesn't really answer the question very well. But thanks for the rest of it.

The clarification of the technologist feat requires the technologist feat to understand.

But I agree, mechanically I can't make heads or tails of the answer in the case the technologist feat is not present. Are the skill checks still possible, but the GMs job is to interpret a more vague/non-technological answer that relates the same general information. Or meta-game on a skill check that the character bloopled enough bleeps to activate the "mysterious artefact." And in either of those cases the DC is the same or different? Or run a stop watch until enough frustration time has elapsed and hand wave on wards?

Or none of the above? I don't understand why people are having trouble with this. The blog says nothing about the Technologist feat (or the rules surrounding it) being changed. So you still don't get to make those checks. The blog just points out that it's okay for Pathfinders to infer that if you can't find an opening mechanism for the door, then maybe the thing at chest height right next to it is involved. Or that something shaped like a "normal" weapon might itself be a weapon. Or a spot with an imprint shaped like a hand might do something if you put your hand in it.

Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".

Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".

This, this, a thousand times this! All GMs and players should have this tattooed into their brain.

Skill checks aren't possible, since you need the Technologist feat to make those. But, just because you can't make skill checks doesn't mean you can't experiment.

Numbered keypad? I type in some numbers, what happens? [GM Answer: if they get the right number, it works. Otherwise, ...]
Firearm-shaped thing with trigger? I point it at a bad guy and pull the trigger, what happens? [GM answer: it fires, using non-proficiency penalty and any other modifiers.]
Big metal guy attacking me, I don't know what its DR is, but I know my charm spells don't work on other constructs so I'll try something else. I hit it with my cold iron mace, what happens? [GM answer: adjuscate using hardness/DR rules as needed.]
Strange tech device with wires and buttons? Dunno, what happens if I cut the red one? [GM answer: disable device doesn't work untrained, so probably bad things happen.]

Big flashing red button with a protective cover, yellow stickers, a robot guarding it? Push it, lets see what happens! (hey, it worked* in gamma world)

*for a definition of worked that involved the entire rest of my party dogpiling me to stop me...

Secane wrote:

Edit: So the Technologist feat is not required for certain skill checks? They just have a bonus to such checks? Or is this in reverse, where those that lack the Technologist feat takes a penalty but can still complete the check?

It sounds like the Technologist feat is required to make the checks, but the scenarios are supposed to be written so those without it can get to the same result through puzzle solving/deduction.

This is exactly what it sounds like. It makes it so people that are specialized in dealing with Numerian tech are just that--specialized. And everyone else will have a harder time of figuring it out.

This shouldn't be a problem though, because of good scenario design there are still going to be alternative solutions that don't involve having the feat. So parties without it can use to progress through the game.

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Secane wrote:

Edit: So the Technologist feat is not required for certain skill checks? They just have a bonus to such checks? Or is this in reverse, where those that lack the Technologist feat takes a penalty but can still complete the check?

It sounds like the Technologist feat is required to make the checks, but the scenarios are supposed to be written so those without it can get to the same result through puzzle solving/deduction.

This is exactly what it sounds like. It makes it so people that are specialized in dealing with Numerian tech are just that--specialized. And everyone else will have a harder time of figuring it out.

This shouldn't be a problem though, because of good scenario design there are still going to be alternative solutions that don't involve having the feat. So parties without it can use to progress through the game.

Uh, John Compton did post that this was a lesson they learned AFTER the first 3 scenarios. Don't expect too great a design in those first three

Fortunately, Kyle Baird was aware of it while writing 6-3. So just 1&2 are potentially affected

Uh, John Compton did post that this was a lesson they learned AFTER the first 3 scenarios.

Where did he say that?

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rep7?Season-6-Technology-Rules-Roundup#20

Ah, okay. Thanks!

Galnörag wrote:

thistledown wrote:

Yeah, the Technologist entry doesn't really answer the question very well. But thanks for the rest of it.

The clarification of the technologist feat requires the technologist feat to understand.

But I agree, mechanically I can't make heads or tails of the answer in the case the technologist feat is not present. Are the skill checks still possible, but the GMs job is to interpret a more vague/non-technological answer that relates the same general information. Or meta-game on a skill check that the character bloopled enough bleeps to activate the "mysterious artefact." And in either of those cases the DC is the same or different? Or run a stop watch until enough frustration time has elapsed and hand wave on wards?

Or none of the above? I don't understand why people are having trouble with this. The blog says nothing about the Technologist feat (or the rules surrounding it) being changed. So you still don't get to make those checks. The blog just points out that it's okay for Pathfinders to infer that if you can't find an opening mechanism for the door, then maybe the thing at chest height right next to it is involved. Or that something shaped like a "normal" weapon might itself be a weapon. Or a spot with an imprint shaped like a hand might do something if you put your hand in it.

Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".

Having run and played 6-02 there are a number of things in there where its just meaningless window dressing without the feat.

Players have no in game or out of game mechanism beyond GM to Player non-game discussion to understand what they are facing. Sure I can pepper up the flavour text, but in game the player's character can't understand, and until they have encountered one before and by chance seen the vulnerability would be meta gaming any lightening vulnerability.

So season 6 either has a feat tax or a veracity gap and in that gap and inexplicable number of warrior types buying +1 adamantine shocking <weapon type>

So, you were only talking about monster ID checks?

I really do not see what the problem is. Without knowledge: religion people dont know in character what undead are. But that's not stopping them from some experimenting until they find out what works. And have that in character knowledge from there on.

Although the Hit Harder philosophy works a lot of the times.

Jiggy wrote:

Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".

This, this, a thousand times this! All GMs and players should have this tattooed into their brain.

+2

Investigators have an alchemy class ability similar to that of an alchemist. Are investigators also able to craft alchemical items in Pathfinder Society Organized Play?

Investigators are able to craft alchemical items and poisons as if they were alchemists. This information will appear in an upcoming update to the Pathfinder Society FAQ, both in the poisons section (which will also include the investigator's poison lore class ability) and the alchemist crafting section.

Damn! Now I have to go buy the Alchemy Manual

Shaking fist at the sky
"KHANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!"

Fortunately, Kyle Baird was aware of it while writing 6-3. So just 1&2 are potentially affected

Having played all three of them, I thought the feat had the most impact in 6-01, where you actually get to use a lot of technology yourself. In 6-02 you're just fighting a lot of robots and holding onto your adamantine twohander for dear life. In 6-03 the opposition is much more varied and Technologist really doesn't matter a whole lot. "Oh, these constructs have hardness instead of DR and magic immunity. Now let's focus on the spellcaster they're serving as bodyguards, because that guy is SCARY."

Undone wrote:

It's more that season 6 is indescribably lethal for little reason other than lethality.

Weird. None of the Season 6 tables I've seen have had ANY lethal results.

We ran 3 tables of 6-01. One was a TPK, one should have been a TPK (the GM was nice to a table of brand new characters) and one was a cakewalk. The results seemed to depend entirely on the amount of player experience. I personally haven't played or GM'd the scenario so I can't comment further.

The table I ran of 6-02 was in that most precarious of positions: APL 4.8 party of 5 -- playing up with a 4 player adjustment. Several characters came within an hp of dead, but everyone survived. I gave more information than I technically should have, but less than an actual knowledge roll would have given, mostly because one of the characters had already been through 6-01.

Good players who pay attention should be all right. Play sloppy or unlucky and you might have problems.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Undone wrote:

It's more that season 6 is indescribably lethal for little reason other than lethality.

Weird. None of the Season 6 tables I've seen have had ANY lethal results.

We ran 3 tables of 6-01. One was a TPK, one should have been a TPK (the GM was nice to a table of brand new characters) and one was a cakewalk. The results seemed to depend entirely on the amount of player experience. I personally haven't played or GM'd the scenario so I can't comment further.

The table I ran of 6-02 was in that most precarious of positions: APL 4.8 party of 5 -- playing up with a 4 player adjustment. Several characters came within an hp of dead, but everyone survived. I gave more information than I technically should have, but less than an actual knowledge roll would have given, mostly because one of the characters had already been through 6-01.

Good players who pay attention should be all right. Play sloppy or unlucky and you might have problems.

The level 1-2 tier range has a creature with +12 damage while power attacking. That's outright stupid and poor design.

Did some tier 1-2 checking:

Before the Dawn part 1: two slams for d8+6, can use Power Attack
Darkest Vengeance: two short sword attacks d6 + 2d6 sneak attack + poison
Penumbral Accords: 4 natural attacks
Murder on the Throaty Mermaid: 2d6+3 vs touch
Dalsine Affair: 1d6+2 twice + 4d6 shocking grasp
Frostfur Captives: 3d8+3 touch
ToEE: one particular room just kills you, the boss is cuhrayzee too
Severing Ties: two slams for d8+5, a certain save or die
Night March: 2 pincers 2d8+10, 2 claws 1d6+10, bite 1d8+10
Horn of Aroden: d8+9+d6 nonlethal

Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!

That said, like with Trial by Machine, some of these won't necessarily ever hit given their tactics, position or player choices.

Did some tier 1-2 checking:

Before the Dawn part 1: two slams for d8+6, can use Power Attack
Darkest Vengeance: two short sword attacks d6 + 2d6 sneak attack + poison
Penumbral Accords: 4 natural attacks
Murder on the Throaty Mermaid: 2d6+3 vs touch
Dalsine Affair: 1d6+2 twice + 4d6 shocking grasp
Frostfur Captives: 3d8+3 touch
ToEE: one particular room just kills you, the boss is cuhrayzee too
Severing Ties: two slams for d8+5, a certain save or die
Night March: 2 pincers 2d8+10, 2 claws 1d6+10, bite 1d8+10
Horn of Aroden: d8+9+d6 nonlethal

Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!

That said, like with Trial by Machine, some of these won't necessarily ever hit given their tactics, position or player choices.

In 6-02 there is an encounter with an average damage output in the 100 range with specific written tactics that they gang up on 1 target. At low tier the encounter is only in the 40-50 range, because that's a consolation.

The encounters are numerically high using monsters which should by all rights be CR 5 or 6

In 6-02 there is an encounter with an average damage output in the 100 range with specific written tactics that they gang up on 1 target. At low tier the encounter is only in the 40-50 range, because that's a consolation.

The encounters are numerically high using monsters which should by all rights be CR 5 or 6

Could you explain the math behind that? Preferably in a different thread, since this isn't the discussion thread for that scenario.

Did some tier 1-2 checking:

Before the Dawn part 1: two slams for d8+6, can use Power Attack
Darkest Vengeance: two short sword attacks d6 + 2d6 sneak attack + poison
Penumbral Accords: 4 natural attacks
Murder on the Throaty Mermaid: 2d6+3 vs touch
Dalsine Affair: 1d6+2 twice + 4d6 shocking grasp
Frostfur Captives: 3d8+3 touch
ToEE: one particular room just kills you, the boss is cuhrayzee too
Severing Ties: two slams for d8+5, a certain save or die
Night March: 2 pincers 2d8+10, 2 claws 1d6+10, bite 1d8+10
Horn of Aroden: d8+9+d6 nonlethal

Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!

That said, like with Trial by Machine, some of these won't necessarily ever hit given their tactics, position or player choices.

And, in others, it just gets ugly.

And, in Season 0, there are nasty sub-tier 1-2 scenarios, as well.
Black Waters, for example, 3 natural attacks plus paralyze

Did some tier 1-2 checking:

(snip)

Night March: 2 pincers 2d8+10, 2 claws 1d6+10, bite 1d8+10

If that happens you've totally, and I mean totally, screwed up. The scenario goes out of its way to make that not happen.

I know, but there's blood in those claws despite that. The cat vs curiosity etc.

And personally, I'd just have it reverse gravity.

So, my 38 fame Dark Archive Hellknight Armiger CAN or CANNOT purchase the full Hellknight vanity when his fame hits 40 fame?

The bit about Scarab Sages and the Risen seem to indicate that he can, but the earlier part about retaining vanities seems to imply he can never become a full Hellknight.

Clarification from leadership would be greatly appreciated. :)

Your Dark Archive Armiger can buy the Hellknight vanity as Dark Archive has access to the Cheliax faction vanities. That statement is refering to the fact if you were already a Hellknight (40 fame with Cheliax) and switching to say Sovereign Court, you remain a Hellknight.

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".

This, this, a thousand times this! All GMs and players should have this tattooed into their brain.

+2

TL;DR;

I find that answer glib, because in the space between those options, characters may have to act out of character or be left with a gross lack of understanding as to what they just did which isn't a satisfactory play experience. Completion of a scenario isn't the objective, enjoyment of the gaming session is.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you brought melee besides 2 handed.. you're gonna die.

Well, that explains it. My halberd-wielding inquisitor cleaved 6-01 to pieces.

Meanwhile my brawler spent the entire scenario going TINK, TINK TINK... with the provided dagger. :(