RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Community / Paizo Blog

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
Search Thread

Search this Thread:

151 to 200 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 4/5
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
The Fun Sponge wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.
Can you blame him?

Yes.

Grand Lodge 4/5
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
The Fun Sponge wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.

Can you blame him?

After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who took the same approach.

Personally, I had fun with the Sealed Gate, both as a player and as a GM.

Dark Archive 4/5
medtec28 wrote:
I feel hardness 10 is inappropriate in tier 3-4 regardless of what creature type it comes from. Hardness 8 in tier 2-4 is also not appropriate IMHO. Leadership needs to re-evaluate what an appropriate challenge is.

I note there are earlier season scenarios with hardness in tier 1-2. There was a hardness 8 in tier 1-2 in early season 3 for example which was commented on back then. So it's not a new issue.

5/5 5/55/55/5
TOZ wrote:


Can you blame him?
Yes.

should you blame him?

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who took the same approach.

Wait, what's wrong with The Sealed Gate? I thought it was awesome. That first combat had our group on the edge of our seat.

My only criticism would be that it really needs 6+ hours to fully enjoy, but that's hardly a reason to give it a bad review, let alone give the author a bad review.
4/5
3 people marked this as a favorite.
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work. (Of course, in this case, if your one thing is "hulk smash!" with a big adamantine weapon, you can probably still do what you always do.)

I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.

Moreover the skill system is the way by which players are intended to explore the corners of the story in a way their character can relate too. A player may make astute observations and ask questions to get a player understanding, or they may role play to get additional information where there are NPCs to interact with, but when a player wants there character to understand the nature of a spooky alter, then need knowledge religion to infer more then surface observations, if they want to speculate on the stability of a structure they need knowledge engineering. Attempting to divorce the rule system from the game and then saying the game is fine is disingenuous to me.

I have to agree with Galnorag, and really I don't see anyway you can say it rewards well rounded characters, when it definitely does the exact opposite. I haven't actually 6-01, but I've played 6-02 and 6-03 and they certainly reward the specialist.

Scenario 6-2 at tier 6-7(Contains Spoilers):

First Encounter is 4 gearsman.

Two Handed Offensively Focused Warrior Vs. Sword & Board, Offensive warrior will have the better chance of survival. He will tas

Specialized Conjurationist wizard vs More Generalized Wizard, Conjurationist Wizard will be largely more effective. You can get rid of at least half the battlefield with a single spell, the guy throwing a fireball is doing 11 damage if they fail the save (which is likely) at the cost of one of his few 3rd level slots.

A min-maced character vs a balanced one with technologist feat, The min maxed PC wins, even with the technologist feat, most PC's can't affect their crit rate or do lightning damage on the whim (I know there are exceptions, but most can't and may not be in a party where they can either), where the min-maxed pc can likely at least hurt them.

Pc who spent 1/3-1/2 his wealth on a +1 adamantine weapon vs character who bought a more rounded gear selection, +1 adamantine wins hand down over armor or anything.

I could go on, but if anything these scenarios penalize generalist, and reward specialist. I just don't see any other way of viewing it.

Not only that, the character you take the feat on may not even play in the right scenarios. I have three linguist characters that have dozens + languages. You know who I'm never playing in a scenario where you need that language, those three PC's. I have several social PC's, and unless its labelled (like Blackros Matrimony) they may not be in the scenario where I need to talk. And I have 2 infiltrator types, and 4/5 times I play a mission where their unique skills would come in handy, I have another PC at the table.

So you have to take a feat, then your playing your other PC (maybe this guy leveled out or whatever) and your one with the feat isn't even there when he's needed. It poorly executed and punishes you whether you play to it or not.
Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

@Under A Bleeding Sun:

I'll agree about 6-02 rewarding specialization in adamantine/2H weapons. Less so about 6-03;

Spoiler:
There's a lot of non-gearsman enemies, including a several very dangerous spellcasters. The gearsmen are basically mooks in that scenario. There's also much fewer of them than in 6-02.

We played 6-03 first, and thought "these robots aren't so bad", then we played 6-02 and were "are these really the same robots? These seem so much more dangerous."

In 6-03 we just quickly mobbed the individual gearsmen and got rid of them. In 6-02 we actually got surrounded in the opening encounter and had to deal with them healing each other and getting healed by the plasm in the final encounter.

4/5
Ascalaphus wrote:

@Under A Bleeding Sun:

I'll agree about 6-02 rewarding specialization in adamantine/2H weapons. Less so about 6-03;

** spoiler omitted **

Right, but against those other enemies having the technologist feat/being more well rounded wouldn't matter anyway, as far as I can remember anyway.

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

We really didn't feel like the feat would've done a whole lot at all in 6-02 and 6-03, only on 6-01 perhaps. In 6-02 I guess you're supposed to get by on the few clues the scenario provides to you, as well as just knowing that the solution to all constructs is always adamantine. In -03 the gearsmen are decidedly secondary. You don't really need to understand them, just whack them hard.
Grand Lodge 5/5
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
The Fun Sponge wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.

My opinion and experience are coming from GMing and Playing 6-02 and having seen a table of 6-01 I haven't suffered 6-03 yet.

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

6-03 wasn't suffering. I really liked that scenario.
Liberty's Edge 4/5
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Question for the FAQ/upcoming update: Will the Poison Use rules be updated for Vishkanya characters as well?
5/5
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again.

I appreciate that.

1/5
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
6-03 wasn't suffering. I really liked that scenario.

I agree with this having just played it last night. It has diverse enemies but still has a tech feeling. Take note this is what adventures should look like when including tech. Important but not mandatory.

6-02 is just a poorly designed adventure. It has multiple level +2-+3 encounters using under CR'ed gearmen with favorable tactics, terrain, and items. It's too bad because I like the blackros museum adventures.

6-01 is heavily GM dependent and group dependent. If you can beat the first gearman you'll do fine unfortunately he's a gate keeper to the entire adventure.
5/5
Galnörag wrote:
The Fun Sponge wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.
My opinion and experience are coming from GMing and Playing 6-02 and having seen a table of 6-01 I haven't suffered 6-03 yet.

So your opinion that 6-03 punishes well-rounded players is based thoroughly being involved with one scenario and watching another one play? Okay then.

Grand Lodge 4/5
Undone wrote:
6-02 is just a poorly designed adventure. It has multiple level +2-+3 encounters using under CR'ed gearmen with favorable tactics, terrain, and items.

What tactics? Because I ctrl-f'ed the scenario looking for that and found nothing specified for the gearmen.

Grand Lodge 5/5
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm on the same line as Ascalaphus.

Only in 6-01 is Technologist a feat worth having. It feels like a showcase of a lot of new goodies to me.

6-02 and 6-03 there is not much that you can use it on that really helps you. Some enemies are simply constructs with hardness instead of damage reduction adamantine, just makes it a bit harder for elemental damage to be effective.
5/5
1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowhntr7 wrote:
Question for the FAQ/upcoming update: Will the Poison Use rules be updated for Vishkanya characters as well?

Still hoping to make a Vishkanya paladin!

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
Rushley son of Halum wrote:


After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who took the same approach.

My store is also considering baring all Kyle Baird scenarios except Confirmation.

5/5
thistledown wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:


After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who took the same approach.
My store is also considering baring all Kyle Baird scenarios except Confirmation.

Sounds like a reasonable position.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I kind of liked the Sealed Gate, only the vescavors were a pain. Too darn many.
Shadow Lodge 5/5
3 people marked this as a favorite.
Muser wrote:
I kind of liked the Sealed Gate, only the vescavors were a pain. Too darn many.

Per the infallible CR system, there could have been more. :D

Dark Archive 2/5
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
The Fun Sponge wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.

Can you blame him?

After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who took the same approach.

Quote:
My store is also considering baring all Kyle Baird scenarios except Confirmation.

*HARUMPH*

I demand a refund of my time after playing The Sealed Gate. It was a miserable experience, and I would have rather been punched in the face with a dick staple by the Fun Sponge.

This has ruined all past, future, and parallel universe Kyle Baird scenarios, despite what other reviews say about them. They will most certainly all be terrible because of this one scenario. I refuse to even look at the name Kyle Baird. If the name Kyle Baird appears on a scenario I'm handed, it will be cast into the depths of the shredder!

This is an outrage!

</snark>
1/5
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Undone wrote:
6-02 is just a poorly designed adventure. It has multiple level +2-+3 encounters using under CR'ed gearmen with favorable tactics, terrain, and items.
What tactics? Because I ctrl-f'ed the scenario looking for that and found nothing specified for the gearmen.

02 and bonekeep spoilers

Spoiler:

They sit and wait until the players are in the room and charge into flanking/sandwich them in the middle of the room making 5 foot steping away hard. Especially at high tier. They get a surprise round unless you have an exceptional perception check, and the weapons are 2 handed and due to the x3 critical multiplier they're likely to be fairly lethal across all games since high multipliers favors monsters.

I guess it could be worse with longspears or they could have instead of being advanced gotten 1 fighter level and step up if the writer really wanted to kill you but the first.

The cyberplasm punishes groups which can beat the first room because all of your fancy adamantite two handers which you needed to get past room 1 are useless after you kill the kid.

I've played bonekeep and while bonekeep is hard it tells you it's hard the first encounter in bonekeep 1 is significanly easier and highly similar with 4 Caryatid Column doing the same tactics at tier 6-7. For perspective they have hardness 8, 6 less HP, no power attack, average damage equal to approximately 1/3rd of a gearmen and it's still a decently difficult encounter.

When average adventures take the point of view that bonekeep is not hard enough it's straight up poor design. I'm a power gamer and 6-02 is too far. I GM'ed this and if we hadn't had two adamantite two handers with +12-+15 damage a pop it would have been a total party kill in the first room.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Yeah, I don't see those tactics listed in the scenario.
Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***
Muser wrote:
I kind of liked the Sealed Gate, only the vescavors were a pain. Too darn many.

That was my favorite part!

We had *no* idea what they were, and they terrified us.

It was glorious!
Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Really? That's a shame. We had a lot of fun with sealed gate. Anything that lets the GM put two seven inch minis on the table starts with a plus. It was not as good when I played, because the GM hadn't read the tactics/morale blocks, so some creatures who were friend able fought to the death, which made it run ridiculously long. But when I ran, people had a lot of fun. Even when their level 10 characters were running like scared bunnies.
Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

I still need to run it.

Maybe I'll schedule a 6 hour block of time for it.
Silver Crusade 2/5 *
1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm more than willing to let the Confirmation and Sealed Gate cancel each other out on the scoreboard for Baird scenarios.
Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

It'd be awesome if every Baird scenario had a deceased Dhampir behind a secret door somewhere.

Sort of like an Easter Egg.
Grand Lodge 5/5
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
The Fun Sponge wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.
My opinion and experience are coming from GMing and Playing 6-02 and having seen a table of 6-01 I haven't suffered 6-03 yet.
So your opinion that 6-03 punishes well-rounded players is based thoroughly being involved with one scenario and watching another one play? Okay then.

I'm not commenting specifically on 6-03 at all, I was responding a comment about 3 different scenarios, and then clarifying that my opinion was based on my explicit and detailed experience with one. From that experience my disagreement with the poster is that the technologist feat, and the clarification of it made in this post is a punishment to well rounded characters, because no matter how well rounded a character is, they need a single specialization to enable all their other abilities.

What scenarios I have or haven't read was actually a fallacious argument to fall into, because with or knowledge of the individual scenarios, I stand by that the technologist feat is a specialization or feat tax for PFS players who want to participate in scenarios with technology in them, especially players who have already spread their resources around generalizing, they barred from using those resources without this one specific key. It would be better to use the existing mechanic, higher DCs for more esoteric things, and allow the technologist feat to give a bonus like skill focus to using skills for technology related things.

Boiling that right down, why create a new mechanism/rule system when a suitable one already exists?
Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **
thistledown wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:


After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who took the same approach.
My store is also considering baring all Kyle Baird scenarios except Confirmation.

I hate the Sealed Gate as much as anybody (my review stated that I think it is the worst PFS scenario I've ever played) but I think that this is a massive overreaction.

The Confirmation is superb.

6-03 is quite good. Its challenging but all the challenges are fair.

Haven't played Rats
3/5
1 person marked this as a favorite.

A DM's interptation of a scenario can mean all the difference between a great and boring scenario.
Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
Galnörag wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
The Fun Sponge wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.
My opinion and experience are coming from GMing and Playing 6-02 and having seen a table of 6-01 I haven't suffered 6-03 yet.
So your opinion that 6-03 punishes well-rounded players is based thoroughly being involved with one scenario and watching another one play? Okay then.

I'm not commenting specifically on 6-03 at all, I was responding a comment about 3 different scenarios, and then clarifying that my opinion was based on my explicit and detailed experience with one. From that experience my disagreement with the poster is that the technologist feat, and the clarification of it made in this post is a punishment to well rounded characters, because no matter how well rounded a character is, they need a single specialization to enable all their other abilities.

You're making rather strong claims about 6-03, ("suffer through it") but now you turn around and say that you're not really talking about it at all.

If you want people to understand what you're actually trying to say, don't distract them by throwing fire at something else.

Galnörag wrote:


What scenarios I have or haven't read was actually a fallacious argument to fall into, because with or knowledge of the individual scenarios, I stand by that the technologist feat is a specialization or feat tax for PFS players who want to participate in scenarios with technology in them, especially players who have already spread their resources around generalizing, they barred from using those resources without this one specific key. It would be better to use the existing mechanic, higher DCs for more esoteric things, and allow the technologist feat to give a bonus like skill focus to using skills for technology related things.

Boiling that right down, why create a new mechanism/rule system when a suitable one already exists?

I too think the Technologist feat is bad game design. There are so many other extremely obscure things in Golarion that locking this specific one behind a feat tax seems stupid. You don't need a feat to understand Azlant, Thassilonian, Serpentfolk, Mwangi, Tian, Mythos or other systems of magic/alchemy/whatever.

That said, the three scenarios are different when you're looking to see how much impact having/not having the feat actually has.

S6 scenarios:

  • In 6-01 you actually need to operate some technology to complete the scenario.
  • In 6-02 the only thing you really need to know is how to kill gearsman and the BBEG. Killing gearsmen works mostly the same way as killing any construct (DR/adamantine or Hardness, not a lot of difference to a melee guy. Hardness or immunity to any magic that allows SR, also not an endless difference.)
  • In 6-03 the gearsmen are basically mooks for your actual enemies, who are pretty much all of them humans with a few toys. They're scary because they're high-level spellcasters, not because of the tech they use.

    • I maintain that you basically miss only 3% or so of 6-02 and 6-03 by not having the feat. The tech you do find isn't really powerful enough to justify the expense; those laser pistols and such aren't more powerful than non-tech options you already have. So without Technologist you're not really missing out on anything that you'd actually use.
    1/5
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Yeah, I don't see those tactics listed in the scenario.

    02

    Spoiler:

    Quote:
    The gearsmen blend in with the room’s statuary while immobile, requiring a successful DC 25 Perception check to recognize them for what they are before they charge their weapons and take any intruders by surprise.

    This means they wait a turn otherwise there's no surprise round. The group will likely step in and they will be flanked, charged and in other bad spots. They are there to defend the boss and as such will not chase into the street (Not that the party knows that) which means they do not activate until someone (Or everyone) steps in.

    They're highly intelligent and wise. They know better than to make stupid choices. As a result the 18 points average damage at low tier and 23 at the high tier. With 2 and four monsters respectively. As intelligent creatures unless the GM softballs they follow the tactics a standard creature which is intelligent would follow. Deal with the biggest threat, gang up on him and then clean up the rest.

    Grand Lodge 4/5
    Quote:
    As intelligent creatures unless the GM softballs they follow the tactics a standard creature which is intelligent would follow.

    Precisely. GMs have every discretion in those encounters to play as hard or as soft as the party seems to need.

    5/5 *****
    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    pauljathome wrote:
    I hate the Sealed Gate as much as anybody (my review stated that I think it is the worst PFS scenario I've ever played) but I think that this is a massive overreaction.

    I loved The Sealed Gate, it was one of my best Gencon experiences just behind Vengeance and then only because that was being run by Walter. The mechanics part of Gate are significantly more interesting.

    I suppose tastes for scenarios vary but my general view is that once you reach the 7-11 bracket you have to expect the combat side of things to be harder and come prepared accordingly. I certainly wouldn't want to bring a pregen to it but a properly prepared group in tier should be able to handle it.
    Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****
    andreww wrote:
    I loved The Sealed Gate, it was one of my best Gencon experiences just behind Vengeance and then only because that was being run by Walter. The mechanics part of Gate are significantly more interesting.

    Aww... and I thought it was the Sunday slot of The Cairn of Shadows!

    will save not to cry: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (6) + 3 = 9
    5/5 *****

    In an attempt to get away from the Technology argument I wonder if anyone has an answer to this question which I posted earlier in the thread?

    andreww wrote:

    On a separate point with Samsarans now being available in PFS are we likely to get an answer to whether or not Mystic Past Life allows you to grab early entry spells.

    For example, lets say that I am a Samsaran Wizard choosing Mystic Past Life. Can I pick the Summoner spell list and grab Haste at spell level 2, Dimension Door at level 3, Teleport at 4 etc.

    5/5 *****
    Silbeg wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    I loved The Sealed Gate, it was one of my best Gencon experiences just behind Vengeance and then only because that was being run by Walter. The mechanics part of Gate are significantly more interesting.

    Aww... and I thought it was the Sunday slot of The Cairn of Shadows!

    [dice=will save not to cry]1d20+3

    Dammit, I loved that one as well....would you accept joint second?

    Really, with one notable exception all of my Gencon games were excellent. It would be unfair to pick favourites.
    5/5 5/55/55/5
    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kyle Baird wrote:
    shadowhntr7 wrote:
    Question for the FAQ/upcoming update: Will the Poison Use rules be updated for Vishkanya characters as well?
    Still hoping to make a Vishkanya paladin!

    HACHOOO!

    *Falls*
    "Dammit, not again"
    5/5
    andreww wrote:
    would you accept joint second?

    No.

    5/5
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Kyle Baird wrote:
    shadowhntr7 wrote:
    Question for the FAQ/upcoming update: Will the Poison Use rules be updated for Vishkanya characters as well?
    Still hoping to make a Vishkanya paladin!

    HACHOOO!

    *Falls*
    "Dammit, not again"

    Or a Grippli paladin! It would be a shame to lose your paladin abilities while sitting inside a T-Rex.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5
    andreww wrote:
    I suppose tastes for scenarios vary but my general view is that once you reach the 7-11 bracket you have to expect the combat side of things to be harder and come prepared accordingly. I certainly wouldn't want to bring a pregen to it but a properly prepared group in tier should be able to handle it.

    Heh, well I've played or gm'd almost every 7-11(missing 9) and survived both Serpent's Skull and RotRL so I can, for once, say this with some authority: The Sealed Gate is too hard.

    It's a great scenario, but there really was nothing I could have done, outside a tool that grants infinite rerolls.

    Bonekeep? Pfft.
    Shadow Lodge

    Employing necromancy on this Q&A, since I couldn't find this clearly stated, and with some of other threads there's still FUD (dated more recently than September)...

    Q&A wrote:

    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 seems to imply that even adamantine weapons would not bypass hardness, because this is "creature hardness" and not "object hardness" and the rules for adamantine bypassing such are tied to weapons and objects.

    Adamantine Weapons wrote:
    eapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20.

    So, can I take this to mean that adamantine is great against animated chairs with hardness, but does nothing against robot hardness based on the design team's intent and the Q&A for the season?

    It certainly would be nice to keep it a simpler rule to employ...
    4/5 5/55/55/55/5

    I liked the Sealed Gate!

    We got mauled and kicked around mercilessly, and it was delightfully refreshing.
    Grand Lodge 3/5

    Has there been any more official clarification on retraining for ACG classes?

    Specifically:
    Shaman retraining hexes, Slayer's retraining talents, etc.
    Hybrid classes having synergies with their parent classes.
    Classes having retraining synergy with themselves.

    As written, a Barbarian doesn't have synergy with a Bloodrager (because "Barbarian" isn't in the synergy classes for "Barbarian") and Shaman don't have symmetry with Witch.
    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    (psst... read the blog you're commenting on)
    Grand Lodge 3/5

    I've read the blog, unless I'm having a giant reading fail.

    Do you think this allows a Bloodrager to retrain into Barbarian with synergy?

    The way I read it, you have this line:
    Old Class: Bloodrager
    New Class: Cavalier, Fighter, Ranger
    And you have explicit retraining synergy with Sorcerer from the Blog.

    Bloodrager<->Barbarian synergy is implied, but isn't actually covered by what's written here.

    And it's not clear if the other missing parent<->child synergies (like Witch <-> Shaman) are intentional or just overlooked.

    Similarly, I don't see anything here that would give a Slayer the ability to retrain a Talent, or a Shaman to retrain a Hex. The Ult. Campaign rules specicially say that a Witch can retrain a Hex. It seems pretty clear that a Shaman is supposed to be able to retrain a Hex as well, but it's not explicit.
    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***
    The Blog wrote:

    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.

    This means that a Bloodrager has the same retraining synergies as a Barbarian, and any class that lists the Barbarian as a retraining synergy also has the Bloodrager as a retraining synergy.

    This means that a Shaman has the same retraining synergies as a Druid, and any class that lists the Druid as a retraining synergy (the Witch does not) also has the Shaman as a retraining synergy.

    I'm not sure where your confusion lies about retraining class features. Class features may be retrained by spending 5 days (and 5 Prestige) for each feature you're looking to retrain. Nothing in the Blog changes those general rules.
    151 to 200 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.