Year of the Sky Key Q&A

Monday, September 15, 2014

The start of the Year of the Sky Key has spawned many questions thanks to the faction changes, the release of the Advanced Class Guide, and the use of Technology Guide. In preparation for today's blog, I compiled my list of known questions, polled venture-officers about unanswered questions still at large on the messageboards, filtered out the ones that weren't specific to the organized play campaign (saved to pass along to their associated designers and developers), and wrote out answers and updates to everything that was left.

Warpriest Retraining

Are playtest warpriests able to adjust their ability scores based on the fervor class ability's new dependence on Wisdom?
Yes, page 28 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play states that "if a class, prestige class or class feature-dependent ability score is altered," the character qualifies for a rebuild, maintaining the same equipment. That means a character's class choices, feats, skill ranks, spells known, et cetera can change.

Are playtest warpriests able to adjust character features tied to these ability scores (e.g. losing ranks in Diplomacy to instead put them in Sense Motive)?
Yes, see above.

Are playtest warpriests able to alter any other character choices/options (e.g. feats) as part of any rebuilding process?
Yes, see above.

Are playtest warpriests able to take archetypes as part of any rebuilding process?
Yes, see above.

What are the warpriest's retraining synergies (as per Ultimate Campaign's retraining rules on page 190)?
In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, determine the retraining synergies for the Advanced Class Guide classes by substituting one class name for an existing class on the table. For example, an arcanist has the same retraining synergies as a wizard, and any class that lists the wizard as a retraining synergy also has the arcanist as a retraining synergy.

  • Substitute the term "arcanist" anywhere the term "wizard" appears.
  • Substitute the term "bloodrager" anywhere the term "barbarian" appears. Bloodragers have retraining synergy with sorcerers and vice versa.
  • Substitute the term "brawler" anywhere the term "fighter" appears.
  • Substitute the term "hunter" anywhere the term "ranger" appears.
  • Substitute the term "investigator" anywhere the term "alchemist" appears.
  • Substitute the term "shaman" anywhere the term "druid" appears.
  • Substitute the term "skald" anywhere the term "bard" appears. Skalds have retraining synergy with barbarians and vice versa.
  • Substitute the term "slayer" anywhere the term "ranger" appears. Slayers have retraining synergy with rogues and vice versa.
  • Substitute the term "swashbuckler" anywhere the term "fighter" appears.
  • Substitute the term "warpriest" anywhere the term "paladin" appears.

What is the intended interaction between the Guide's and the Additional Resources' entries about retraining for the warpriest? Should one or both be revised based on any of the above rulings?
The Additional Resources page and Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play principally conflict regarding warpriest retraining, as no other class's associated ability scores changed between the playtest and final versions of the classes. The Additional Resources page's wording in an important reminder that most classes and most characters do not qualify for comprehensive rebuilds based on the final version of the Advanced Class Guide.

During the playtest, the shaman's spell list had access to summon nature's ally. Is there any rebuilding allowed for those who selected character options that modify summoning such as Augment Summoning?
Shaman characters that selected character options that modify summoning abilities they no longer possess may retrain those features and any immediate prerequisites for those features. For example, such a shaman could retrain Augment Summoning, Superior Summoning, and Spell Focus (conjuration), but not Spell Penetration, Combat Casting, or Improved Initiative. A character can sell back any items that specifically modify summoning abilities, use summon nature's ally, or use summon monster (such as scrolls).

Faction Changes

Does one automatically switch to the successor faction, or is that treated as the one faction change per season?
The change to a successor faction is automatic and does not count as the one free faction change. If your character was a member of the Cheliax faction, she is now part of the Dark Archives faction for free. Try out a scenario as part of that faction, then decide if you want to stick with it or use the free change.

When the five nation-based factions (Andoran, Cheliax, Osirion, Qadira, and Taldor) changed into ideological factions, how many faction-specific features and rewards could a PC retain?
As noted on pages 17-18 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, a member of a retiring faction retains "any faction-specific vanities, titles, traits, prestige items, or other purchases made while the character was a member of the retired faction." As a result, a Cheliax faction PC who purchased the Hellknight prestige award would retain it no matter which faction she ended up joining at the start of Season 6.

Do I also keep any of the faction-specific boons earned on Season 5 Chronicle sheets?
Yes, you keep any of these boons that you earned during Season 5. However, remember that you might not qualify for other faction-specific boons from that faction once you have switched allegiances; page 18 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play covers which current factions correspond to earlier nation-based factions for the purposes of earning these rewards.

Is a character benefiting from The Risen faction prestige award required to stay with the Scarab Sages faction as the natural evolution of the Osirion faction?
This is a special case, given the enduring consequences of purchasing that particular prestige award. A character who possessed this prestige award prior to August 14th, 2014 does not qualify for the free faction change. He can, however, pay 3 Prestige Points per character level to change factions, as described on page 17 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. A member of the Scarab Sages faction who acquires The Risen prestige award [on or after August 14th, 2014] is bound to that faction and cannot change factions.

Technology Guide

Is the Technologist feat in Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Technology Guide required to attempt any skill checks regarding technology?
The following text will appear in an updated version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play:
"The otherworldly technology associated with Numeria is very different from the rest of the technology available on Golarion,and so far advanced that any comprehensive understanding requires the Technologist feat (Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Technology Guide 7). However, scenarios that include Numerian technology are designed in a way that characters with the Technologist feat have an advantage, yet those without are still able to succeed at the mission. Clever Pathfinders might operate a device by trial and error, infer a device's use by its placement (such as a keypad on a door acting as a lock), or draw logical if crude associations between known items and Numerian technology (such as a laser pistol having the same shape and features as a hand crossbow or Alkenstar firearm)."

How does hardness work for creatures? Does energy damage such as cold deal half damage to creatures with hardness (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 173-174) even before applying the flat numerical reduction?
When a creature with hardness sustains damage, subtract its hardness from the damage dealt. The rules for halving damage, doubling damage, dealing damage with ineffective tools, immunities, and the like only apply to damaging inanimate objects.
(This is apparently a question the Design Team has received a few times during the development of Iron Gods, so they were ready to go with an answer!)

Miscellaneous

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.

I received a ratfolk or samsaran race boon for volunteering at a recent convention, but the Additional Resources page still says that ratfolk and samsaran options in Advanced Race Guide are not legal for play. Is this ever going to change?
All ratfolk and samsaran alternate racial traits, favored class bonuses, archetypes, equipment, feats, and spells are legal for play. Note that most of these options are limited to ratfolk and samsaran characters respectively following the Advanced Race Guide entry's second paragraph on the Additional Resources page. The next Additional Resources update is set to revise the entry.

What deities can a warpriest worship? The Additional Resources page suggests that only the core 20 deities are legal choices.
This is not the intended interpretation, and the next Additional Resources update is set to revise the entry to read as follows. "To select a blessing, a warpriest must worship a deity that offers the domain of the same name." A warpriest in the organized play campaign is able to select from among any of the legal deity choices.

Can one purchase a ring of eloquence (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 216) with any combination of languages? Are restricted or banned languages such as Druidic or Androffan options?
At this time, only two configurations of the ring of eloquence exist in the organized play campaign. The first grants the ability to speak and understand Common, Dwarven, Elven, and Gnome. The second grants the ability to speak and understand Giant, Goblin, Orc, and Undercommon. Rings with other configurations may appear as treasure on Chronicle sheets.

John Compton
Developer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Factions Frequently Asked Questions Pathfinder Campaign Setting Pathfinder Society
51 to 100 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
1/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Undone wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Undone wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge 4/5

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.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

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.

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Shadow Lodge

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.

Scarab Sages 1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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

It's as bad as using Shadows.

4/5 ** Venture-Agent, Missouri—St. Louis

ShakaUVM wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 *

ShakaUVM wrote:

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

It's as bad as using Shadows.

Or a Wight...

The Exchange

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.

3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:
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

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

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.

Trial by Machine:
You just killed some skeletons wearing weird gloves. They don't appear to be weapons or have special powers you can just activate. However, there's also this odd plate on a door that has no handles. At some point it's really not so strange to try touching it with the glove. Tadaa!

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.

Sovereign Court 3/5

This is super helpful, thanks John!

5/5 *****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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?

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 shitty technology rules" but they dont so you are left either rolling the dice or reading through the reviews beforehand which is less than ideal.

4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joshua N Hancock wrote:
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. ^_^

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

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

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

•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?

3/5

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!

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
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?

Grand Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.]

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
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".

4/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

GM Lamplighter wrote:

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...

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

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.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
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

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

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

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

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

Where did he say that?

Liberty's Edge 4/5 *

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

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ah, okay. Thanks!

Grand Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
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.

GM: A creature ("insert 3 extremely different creatures encounter")
Player: "Hey what is that creature"
GM: Do you have the Technologist Feat
Player: No
GM: It is as described
Player: Okay I hit it
GM: Didn't work so great, must have some sort of damage resistance or hardness
Player: Okay I hit it harder.

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>

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

So, you were only talking about monster ID checks?

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Netherlands

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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:

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!!!!!!!!!"

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

FLite wrote:
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."

Shadow Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
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.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

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.

1/5

Muser wrote:

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

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Undone wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Muser wrote:

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.

Shipyard Rats:
2d6+2
1d6+3x2
1d10+1
2d6 Will save DC 12, 6 times
Blindness
1d6+4x2
1d8+1
1d6 Will DC 13, 4 times
1d6+1+diseasex2

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

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Muser wrote:

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.

Spoiler:
The Glabrezu is imprisoned and can't get out on its own, so it can only attack you if you step into its circle or free it. There ate lots of clues as to why you shouldn't do that. And even if you do free it, its tactics dictate that he ignores you because you really aren't a threat to him.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

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.

1/5 **

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. :)

Sovereign Court 5/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.

Grand Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
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

ranty:

Yes there is, but knowledge checks are supposed to be the bridge to cross the chasm between veracity and metagaming, so that one does not leap it blindly. In the scenarios the parties without characters with this feat may only make the most basic mechanical inference from technology, and then choose to, or choose not to randomly actuate said mechanism/monster/puzzle. Where the obstacle is between the characters and the main plot of the scenario it requires players to choose whether to act with player knowledge, or make an in character decision to blindly stumble ahead, unsure of if they are pushing the kill everything button, or the open door button. Some times the choice will make more in game sense then others, a button/buttons adjacent to a doorway or doorway like object may be reasonably assumed to be associated with that doorway, as opposed to a 10 key keypad with no-golorian numbers on a pedestal in the middle of the room. Never mind that random activation is probabilistically never going to work, unless the spaceship was designed by apple it should lock out after a number of failed attempts. Even if it could work, a LN person might object to solving a problem by random interaction with a possibly dangerous object.

At other times the scenarios just become impenetrable story wise if you don't have the feat, the final encounter in 6-02 is actually really novel, and what is going on in the room would make zero sense to the PCs having no Golorion analog of a satellite dish. So the players and the player characters are just totally confused. They walk away from the table and say, well I don't know what happened there, but I got a chronicle.

All this errata says is that PCs who fail to complete the scenario and cite lack of knowledge as an excuse are in reality being dumb. To me that fails to address that finishing a scenario is different then enjoying a scenario.

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.

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
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. :(

51 to 100 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Year of the Sky Key Q&A All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.