I sure hope so, because even if they make a bear fall swiftly to a powerful magic spear, even in heavy armor bears are horrifically capable of disfiguring a human. They should honestly be a very capable threat well into the mid levels.
I feel like regular bears should be around 3-5 dire bears 7-8ish with advanced and templates to bump things around. By level 11-13 you are basically a demi-god fighting angels and demons. IMO you'd be more likely to fight the god of bears at mid level
I believe they mentioned a big reason why they are changing monster creation was due to a lot of non-magical creatures not really throwing a punch at that CR value. I think we can start to expect animals to feel like actual decent monsters with decent stats in 2e
I really hope we get an option to double dip into totems, perhaps like an eldritch heritage feat line. So many cool concepts get limited by taking old archetypes/feat lines and making them all totems of which you can have one. Without knowing more totems and exactly what they do it is hard to really grasp it.
Some examples:
Giant+Supersticous= You value strength above all else. To fight the giants you have embraced the mentality of fighting fire with fire. Stronger and bigger, power forged through strength not pidly little spells.
(making an assumption that fury may have abilities to double down on the effects of rage ex. reckless attack)
Fury+Giant= The best defense is a good offense, after all, they cant hit you if they're dead.
Dragon+Giant= Your draconic blood feeds your hatred of the giants. Generations they enslaved your ancestors, but no longer. You will see the giants consumed by dragon fire, they will be ash.
Now sure, there has to be balance, but even just a feat tax plus you have to take the anathema should be enough. I mean with a small handful of totems I already can think of this many combinations, imagine when we have all of them.
I am the worst GM, not always, but I feel that I have earned the title from one starfinder game.
So we were at a con at a hotel, our group was more or less running everything, and we got to the last slot for the night and we had 11 people signed up and only one GM. So I took four of the guys from my normal group and we went up to one of the rooms and I ran the encounter for them. I had never read the scenario, I had been drinking, I had none of my stuff with me. The first encounter went something like this.
"So there is this guy right, a shady guy, prolly does bad stuff, he wants you to go to this place and get a thing. So you guys go to the place and you go look for the thing when WAM, there are some dudes, bad dudes, bad zombie dudes, one of the zombie dudes is a lady and she just stabs you right in your stupid face. I rolled a 12 plus, I dont know a +3, does a 15 hit, yah, 4 damage (I had no dice I was just yelling numbers)"
So after that combat, we had a spaceship combat. We looked like drunk mimes trying to keep straight ship positions in the air, but we eventually got it. But my favorite part was was we there were these green pods, and when eaten they. Yep. When eaten, end of the sentence. Drunk me just started making up what happens when they are eaten because I had no idea what they did, it ended up mentioning them like 10 pages later. Now my table had fun, but if I had to rank my performance as GM it would have been a strong -2/10.
Hey, guys just a heads up I accidentally posted this mid-way through. I have edited in the rest of what I wrote and flagged the double post. Just a heads up in case you see another identical post until it is removed.
I wouldn't be against a penalty for will saves while unconscious, I think we don't have enough number knowledge at this point to say how harsh would be reasonable. I think Unconsciousness should give an additional penalty to helplessness other than making your dex 0 or simply you auto fail reflex saves while unconscious. A DC 13 fireball should still almost always hit me even if I'm a class with a base reflex of +6 if I am asleep. If I am just tied up but awake I can see how some of your ability to dodge could still be used. Fort saves don't seem to have anything to do with your state of awareness and think that they wouldn't need any modification.
Party: All right, you're bad at stealth so Just stay back here and wait for us to give you the signal.
Me: Got it wait here, listen for a signal
Party Leaves
I get up and walk away from the table to get a snack, gone maybe 15 minutes.
I get back and ask if I'd been signaled and how long has passed. I hadn't and it had been about 15 minutes.
Me: Wait here for a signal
Wait there for signal
Go over there for signal
Go over there for sandals
Goats for sandals.
Oh boy, they are trading goats for sandals.
I ran up to the fort and knocked. Killed two soldiers and a wizard, before I fell to the 4th color spray and was killed.
If 50% of consumers all start yelling that all criticism is bad, paizo is likely to listen to them.
Wow. You're crediting our intelligence remarkably little there.
Example, 50% are yelling the shifter is fine we like the shifter because the shifter is what it is and we should be glad we got anything. 50% say it is underpowered and generally worse at its shtick than the druid. As a company you are not likely to burn the cost or man-hours to change a thing that 50% of your fan base don't want to be changed. But say 10-20%ish of the people who dont want the shifter to be fixed, don't want anything ever to be fixed based on the principle that changes how the numbers should really fall.
I in no way am implying any of the paizo staff are less than excellent. All I am saying is that we are currently is a society where it is the cultural norm to yes-man anyone who is making something. whether it be art, movies, or in this case a game. As a result of that I expect to hear a lot of "this is great paizo don't listen to those guys, they just are haters who only want PF 1e" even if something truly would be better off changed.
The replies in this thread doesn't seem to address the concern raised.
Reading the opening post, it doesn't really seem like the concern is about blocking people saying naughty words or being mean, but about fostering a cult of yes men.
If you have been reading the forums for the last day or so, I think you have more than sufficient evidence that that's not how we work around here.
Really? it seems for every one person who says I don't like this thing there is at least one saying how dare you not like this thing your wrong. Clearly one of them can quickly go into the unhelpful and toxic direction, but there are those who have voiced an opinion that paizo is the artist and that your art shouldn't be changed by us.
To be clear, the opening post said "I'm concerned that Paizo will block out feedback that doesn't adhere to a set of sensibilities."
If you've been reading our feedback, I think it's pretty clear that Paizo is listening to the entire discussion. Whether individual posters are doing so or not is a separate issue.
Sorry for misunderstanding your post. But, I agree paizo has generally had a great history of not only listening but communicating with us consumers. What worries me is there is a growing minority of players shouting "everything paizo has put out is great and perfect how dare you imply otherwise" If 50% of consumers all start yelling that all criticism is bad, paizo is likely to listen to them. But therein lies the problem. Often things need tweaked and changed and while those people yell that paizo can and will do no wrong, when they sit down at the table they will be unhappy. Kind of the issue of the customer is always right, when in actuality it is usually the customers have no idea what they want until it's in front of them and what they thought they wanted is bad.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Your description isn't pathfinders either. You have this nebulous idea of what a paladin is and are so rooted in it you wont let other play something different. I don't stop other players from playing a barbarian with an 18 int and 14 Chr because all barbarians are dumb and live off in the mountains.
In an effort to make MAD more common and therefore subtly tweak the dependency on Dex, I reckon if each class were to require dependency on two or more skills, one mental and one physical, it'd allow for some interesting play- for example, Sorcerers using Charisma for spells and Constitution for Bloodline powers. Naturally, this comes with its risks- not everyone wants a Barbarian who needs Charisma, or a Fighter relying on Wisdom.
I was thinking something along those lines. Maybe tie spells per day to one and spell DC's to another. Barbarians already have this to an extent with Str and Con, Id probably say that a way to make them scale more on Con would be to take rage and have it be, instead of 4+con lv 1 and 2 every level after, 4+con and then half con rounded, not sure whether up or down yet.
Yeah...Paladins should be good-aligned, period. That's the fundamental flavor of the class. But don't have a real problem with NG or CG Paladins. Maybe work those in as archetype options.
A general "holy warrior" class: that's what the Warpriest is for, right? Or even a cleric, depending on build.
I think there should be good paladins and (evil) anti paladins. So a LG paladin of serenrae is a good example of typical lawful goodery. I don't see how having a chaotic good paladin of erastil, who is a knight and champion of the forest that will protect it no matter what for the sake of their deity is affects your lawful goodness. I don't see how a LN paladin of abadar that protects all law and order, for the true enemy of the world is chaos makes you have less fun. I dont see how a CE anti paladin of Lamashtu who will protect the brood by any and all means for she is the progenitor of the true great breed of monsters means that you can't stop your party from killing that goblin you knocked out.
I agree that “you’re just a hater” isn’t a useful response to criticism, but you won’t see that from Paizo employees either. That’s inevitably an overly aggressive fan.
Again, I think the key is to refrain from commenting on another poster’s motivations. If everyone followed that rule, I think the place would be much nicer.
No, you're right paizo employees don't say your a hater shut up. They say "this post has been delete blah blah constructive criticism." It's maybe 1/50 where I feel they over step.
I am mostly worried about a significant portion of paizo's fanbase that is already voicing the opinion of "how dare you imply something about this could be bad."
Here is what I don't get. I play monks and barbarians. Most of my time playing this game has been split between those two classes. If you want to make a lawful evil barbarian I think you should be able to. That in no way affects me or my character. If you want to play a CE monk, go for it, again this doesn't change my character. Why do people think that letting others play a paladin, those that wouldn't otherwise play the class, deprives them of something? If I have an apple and someone says hey man I don't really like apples can I have an orange, I don't take your apple. Bluntly, those of you who claim you are "losing" something by broadening the paladin's restrictions are being elitist, childish, and overly stubborn.
I think the fear that many have is that we live in a world where criticism is less and less accepted. The arguments of "then why dont you (do, make, play, sing, write, draw, etc.) it yourself" or "Your just a hater, just don't play" are answers I've gotten to nearly any piece of criticism I've had with just about anything these last couple years.
If I and many others say, "We really don't like this thing, maybe do another thing" that warrants a discussion. Ultimately it's up to paizo to look and see what will be best financially as a decision for them.
For instance say that 15% of pathfinder players want to switch to nearly identical rules to 5e and a growth of new players both from switching from 5e and the easier access of the game brings that to a current player base of 25%. Paizo would need to judge whether or not they would lose more than 10% of existing players.
The reason I bring up the above is paizo with this new direction needs to give the players a reason to stick around. They in fact do need to do damage control to an extent to make sure they maintain enough of their player base as not to outway new growth. That reason is way they do need to pay attention to statements like "*blank* needs to change or I'm not playing this game." The idea likely starts with the "new player friendly stuff" and work out the dealbreakers with the existing playerbase.
There are going to 100% be people on both sides that are both dismissive and rude. In the last couple years, I have seen an uptick in people who have the belief that all criticism is harassment and those who criticise deserve to be vilified. These forums haven't been free of that in my experience. Recently I think my favorite is the response to people saying that they don't like the direction of TTRPG's becoming "simplified for the masses" is that they "just shouldn't buy it and that we shouldn't complain about new material."
In response to the kind and polite criticism thing here are three posts with the same content and consider which would get something actually changed.
1. This game is f*****g broken and literal garbage, whoever decided I can't draw a weapon as part of my move should get his hands cut off so he can never write trash for garbagefinder 2.0
2. Wow, the new action economy seems dumb. Can't even draw a weapon as part of a move. Thanks a lot paizo. Ruined
3. I find that by not being able to draw a weapon as a non action on your turn it really bogs down combat and leads to the party walking with their weapons drawn everywhere as to not "waste" an action. I'm not sure it quite is helpful enough to warrant a feat, ala quickdraw, but perhaps whatever is replacing traits could be used. Even possibly a martial reaction that can be used at the start of combat.
I know how incredibly hard it is to write high level play, it certainly can get absurd. My one hope is we see an intentional path to 20 and even hopefully a game played at lv 20. Certainly, there doesn't need to be much super high level play but getting to use a capstone even if it is just once would really make me feel like what a lv 20 anything should feel like.
I like the xp gain, playing a character slow seems to get a good amount of play time in for what I enjoy.
For tiers, and I mean this as un-offensively as possible, if the authors don't screw upscaling on the encounters and DC's it should be fine. I think there are scenarios that can run a 1-5 reasonably well. I'd like maybe 4 1-3 per every one 1-5, and likewise across the other tiers.
My other hopes are tied to the system over all and not pfs related.
also give us a merch re-roll. I don't want a +2 to talk to trees or a -5 to the DC to swim in quicksand. Just 1 re-roll and have it take the boon slot.
my reading of Wild Fighting is it needs you to NOT be raging.
even when NOT raging barbarians can still do things, you can use this ability. is my read on it
At 2nd level, even when not raging, wild ragers often fight with reckless, savage abandon. A wild rager using the full-attack action can make one extra attack per round at her highest base attack bonus. Until the beginning of her next turn, however, she takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and –4 penalty to AC.
If it was when not raging it would say when not raging. If it was when raging it would say when raging. It says even while not raging, meaning both when and when not raging. Your read is wrong.
Not really, that would be at a -20 and not viable.
You could potentially have a high enough CMB that it is (not till way past CR appropriate though), but regardless, I was saying that it is a thing for them.
Now the real question is, does using Chokehold on a Succubus count as an act of passion?
I mean it never says what "exactly" you are using to grapple, just that not having free hands is a -4.
Might just be me but he you only get an AO once from a creature's movement was a rule I missed for a while. Didn't come up till I started spamming the field with ponies to eat up the enemies Ao's.
So I'm going to try and respond to a few of your points, but first I'd like to say I appreciate you being civil in this discussion. Too often this devolves into arguments about bad wrong fun, I am certainly not blameless in that either, and I appreciate your civility.
So first point, GM screens. GM screens are great, but your point that they are there to let you cheat as a GM and stating it like the fact is absurd to me. GM screens are there to hide your rolls, as a byproduct, this hides if you cheat. I don't want the players to see all my rolls, numbers, cheat sheets, maps, or notes, so I put them behind a screen. I do not use the GM screen to hide my rolls.
point 2, fudging in general. So when I play a game a part of the game that I and many other derive enjoyment from is beating challenges. The second you start fudging rolls, you turned on cheat codes, and I no longer feel like I really accomplished anything. To me the stories of how we barely scraped through a big fight or when the barbarian one shot the boss are what makes the game fun. The second I know the GM is fudging dice thoughts like "well did we really beat that dragon?" or "Did that monster actually kill me with that hit?" start popping up. I feel like when the GM fudges rolls to make the story "work" I stopped playing an open world role-playing game and am playing an on the rails visual novel. If I know that when we talk to the king the GM is just going to fudge the rolls so that we impress him, then why do I even care if we roll? Why do we even need to roll. Once you stop rolling your not playing a role-playing game, your just role-playing.
Point 3 and the most important, who cares. Bluntly, none of it matters. As long as it means you'll have more fun then who really cares? If putting your minis on a Candyland board and rolling potatoes instead of dice means that you and your friends have more fun then that is what you should play. But I can't speak for them, or the OP, or anyone else but myself. Thus, other than giving my opinion for what is more fun/right/wrong/better is all I can do other than saying "do whatever you think is best" to every advice post.
It literally ruins the point of using a dice based game. But hey if you want to play a visual novel to each their own. To me, playing a role-playing-game needs to address both aspects. To me saying fudging the dice is ok is no different than saying cheating at board games is better because it's more fun.
My tone was perhaps more than a bit combative, and as a GM and players you have to right to play the game literally, however, you would like. However, if my GM did this without talking with us beforehand I would be quite upset, as to me it is simply cheating.
Random is random. Please don't do what the other say. There is no fairies, there is no magic. Luck isn't real. Let math lead you, the dice will average out.
Honestly, as long as the DM will allow a reversal of fortune if it turns out that a bonus to a save would have made a difference, it really doesn't matter. It costs the table 10 extra seconds. No big deal.
Twenty minutes down the line, when several rounds of a battle have happened?
"What, that -1 to hit, damage and saves is a fear effect? We have a Paladin, he is immune and those near him have a +4 to the save. We thought it was some kind of curse."
Unless the GM do extremely detailed descriptions of every effect, it is hard to guess what kind of effect is applied. Sometime guessing wrong can enhance the game, but when it is something that will be evident if you where in that situation or that is automatically defended it become a major problem.
I feel like you are arguing against an imaginary scenario, an extreme hyperbole of what occurred. I would assume the discussion went much like this "The dragon bites you, roll a fort save for me. Oh, you got a 15? You did not make the save, you are poisoned. Oh, you have a plus 2 against poison, well sorry 17 doesn't save either."
Now there are certainly instances where, I agree, the information needs to be shared. For instance, say the GM never mentions that it was poison and that if he had the PC would have saved. 15 rounds later the PC asks "hey was that a poison effect, because I'm immune to those." Then as the GM you have to address the mistake you made.
But if like the first instance you tell the player, you are now poisoned immediately after they failed the check and 15 rounds later they realize they are immune to poison that is on them. The GM can't run your character for you and some awareness and intuition is certainly required from the PC's side.
I second skulky with Inspired Blades. Panache is too useful to give up one of only two ways to regain it throughout the day.
Depending on what splatbooks have been approved for your game, you could make a skald frontliner that gets +8 to Str and Con and Fast Healing 8 :)
Half-Orc with the shaman apprentice trait, 1 Bloodrager / x Skald, swap your bloodline power for a familiar with the Valet archetype (src: Familiar Folio), pick up Amplified Rage (src: Orcs of Golarion), Skald's Vigor, Power Attack, Diehard, and eventually Greater Skald's Vigor. He's a tough cookie. Not to mention Spell Kenning and a lot of really useful Bard spells. You'll be a secondary party buffer behind your cleric. If you find yourself fighting a lot of evil outsiders, the Celestial Bloodline rage power gives all your party's melee weapons count as good for bypassing DR. Your rogue will appreciate the boost to will saves from inspire rage and the other benefits of rage powers, and you'll definitely be drawing enough attention away from the rogue for it to get in good positioning for those sneak attacks.
I love this build so much, having raging vitality with amplified rage is a blast. Raging for +10 con is just the most absurd fun.
Don't we already have a thread from chaos ticket about this exact topic that was locked? The whole argument is cyclical. I want to play PFS that uses different rules -> Well that isn't PFS, maybe you could play X instead -> No, I want to play PFS -> again those arnt the rules of PFS, Maybe if you did Y -> No I want to Play PFS, just not using any of the rules -> etc.
Gunslingers can be absolute dps monsters in a couple ways. But IMO they get boring fast. To build a really good one it leaves you with very few chances to diversify from another build. 9/10 of your feats go into ranged combat requirements. Most of the guns are just bad, leaving only a small handful. Most good skill classes wont give you anything cool and because your essentially only a dex monkey most of your skills that you do end up grabbing will be sucky.
Now all that aside they aren't bad. Especially if optimized (close to munchkin territory even) you can get your skills up to reasonable levels. You wont have a ton of them but the 4 or 5 you have youll be really good at. Also any build that lets me attack 7 times a round is cool with me. Two weapon fighting, rapid shot, and haste are pretty cool to have.
Weird side note as advice for the players who bring weird characters to the table. Bring a cheat sheet, especially for cons. I have a monk, spiderman, who tries in almost every scenario to deal with it non-lethally. Very quickly I noticed that him punching and doing non lethal had some major faults. Well my CMB and CMD were naturally pretty high so I figured I would build a grappling build. So i did and I'd like to think I did it well and with some unique tricks. But when you roll a two and grapple the elder earth elemental people give you weird looks. So i made a sheet that explains how, from where, and why i do the things I do. After having a GM say, "hey I dont think you can use this thing the way you do", both me and my VC agree i can, I decided that I would also pull up a sheet that had that stripped from it as personally rather than fight on why i'm right id rather just use the lower and talk afterword.
Long story short, know your shit, if you struggle with things like that, write out your shit. It's a major help and when you've done your research your less likely to get wrongly accused of cheating.
I think I am in Bizarro World where I find RPGs are linear and videogames are open world . There is more freedom to be found in Fallout 1 from 20 years ago then in the scenarios at the present.
I dont know how long youve played games that open worlds are no longer interesting to you and everything comes out as "someone did [blank] so now I dont have fun(and dont want anyone else the choice)". To me they are a luxury, hard to find and different. You are blaise about it and dont even care about what youve lost.
You think a +9 Lightsaber in Pathfinder is a bad thing. I think is an interesting puzzle to legally represent one using the ingame rules.
I find open worlds incredibly fun I have 600+ hours of pc skyrim alone, probably 2500 on fallout as a franchise, I've played wow since burning crusade. I spent a hundred hours building my house on fallout. I've had fun playing with OP mods on skyrim. I had max crafting on wow across multiple accounts before i ever did a raid. But with a tabletop RPG you are with other people. Can you imagine playing a 5 person co-op of fallout where you just watch a guy build a house, or a skyrim where he is level 1-bijillion and one shots everything with his lightsaber mod. If you want a sandbox one person RPG im sure you could find a way to make it work but what you want is hard with a dedicated group of friends with a lot of time on their hands let alone a group of people who meet once a week to play DnD.
I think that yes a fun balanced lightsaber representation would be cool. My newest character is the hulk and my second pc was spiderman. Finding cool ways to make new things is fun. But the +9 lightsaber crap is borderline shoolyard nonsense of "nuh uh my monster has an ati lightsaber shield" "well my lightsaber is a special anti lightsaber shield lightsaber."
So you have 6 friends come over on their one day off to play this new game that came out, but you want to spend the entire night in character creation. Do you not see the problem there? your idea of an ideal RPG simply cannot function as a multiplayer game.
As GMs have so much power ingame things are supposed to an imagination war between the players and the GM.
On the other hand its up to the players to not just defeat the adventure but the GM. The greatest goal I can think of in any RPG is defeating the game creator.
So this mentality works fine in a home campaign, but again because we need a set of rules that applies to everything things can't function that way. GM's aren't the all-powerful deity in PFS. They are an avatar of the rules. It's that way for a reason. The same ability to let your GM say "nah this lightning bolt totally is conducted by the water" can let them say "nah you can't play your summoner I think they are op" The GM's are allowed a level of power to handle many issues that may arise such as, what is the dc for lifting this wagon. How many gallons of ale can one orc drink. Could many DM's respect how things work, sure. Could many players respect what items they could or couldn't have, sure. But one guy going to gencon with Broken McStabby Death could ruin 30 people day. Even if only 1 out of 20 people would say "yah i just had a wizard make this +9 lightsaber" that ruins the game for enough people they have to make rules to avoid it.
Again, no hostility meant, I just don't think PFS is for you. Your issues are with the very core of what PFS is. To be honest what you seem to want is a sandbox single player RPG. I'd recommend looking at some of the MMO's that are around. I don't know many home campaigns that have the level of freedom you seem to want. If you ever want to go and try it, doors are always open. but I really would be surprised if you found it enjoyable.
*1 How about instead of going into the goblin cave to kill the goblins, you negotiate a business a agreement for the goblins to have farming and fishing tools and maybe write a set of laws. Or barricade the entrance and starve them out instead?
*2 Why arent there any level 15+ scenarios and adventures?
3* Why are Crafting feats banned in the Society campaign? And by extension why cant I earn money or acquire items not on the scenario list?
I'll go point by point here and for comparisons i will liken it to fallout, although i feel dragon age may be a more apt comparison.
[Edit]Adding a spoiler tag because i think BNW hit my points in much fewer words
Spoiler:
1. I feel you may have a misunderstanding on how scenarios and most of society play functions. So your a wanderer and you just got out of the vault. You know your at point A and you need to get to point B. Now if you were playing a single player game you very well might go from point A to C then Q then every other letter, even some you made up, before going to B. However, the rest of your table maybe only gets to play once a week, and they want to get from A to B in say 4 or 5 hours. So we go back to the beginning. To keep people on track the scenario for the GM will say "once the pc's are aware of the goblin cave a dc 10 Survival check gets them there without being lost, if the pc's fail the survivor in area F will already be dead. Now maybe you get to the door and it says "the pc's may attempt a disable device, strength check, or another suitable skill/spell to open the door." So the Pc's try and they fail but someone has the idea that they speak goblin, what if the yell for someone to come to the door, then talk their way in. So they do and you have successfully gone "off the rails" There are more then one way to deal with problems, but in the same way that if in fallout you only focus on the science skill, eventually you hit a point where the game says "no you have to fight this guys" or "no you lv 2's cant attack the king." And while your right there likely wont be a moment where the paper says, if one of the pc's holds an estate of 10 acres or more give them a bonus of *blank* That is where your roleplaying comes in. Maybe the barbarian doesn't give two craps about the princess and just wants to kill the dragon. Maybe the sorcerer who has draconic blood wants to subdue it. Society is more constrained than a full open sandbox, but it has to be that for reasons i will explain.
2. There are, they are fewer and further in between , but they are there. Now some have stated that paizo has done market research and that it has shown that people only really "want to play" in the approximate 3-7 range. Personally i think it is a load of malarkey and i feel it is because even attempting to write a halfway linear story with high level casters is really hard. You have to start preemptively stopping things from trivializing the adventure. "oh you must go save the princess" oh scry, teleport, teleport=saved "from the giant dragons that gaur....oh wait she's saved. Well done i guess." I wish there were more high level, but I've played for 2ish years and i have several characters in the teens.
3. Oh boy here's the doozey. So it all basically boils down into control. PFS is built around the idea that i can go to any pfs event in any state and sit down and play with a character that is following the same rules as everyone else. Because when we are not using the same rules things fall apart hard. So instead of going into the goblins lair you hire a wizard to teleport you into a dragons den and you pilfer the legendary blade "haedrigon, the annihilation core king sword " it does a bajillion damages and makes the the player to your left have to give you all his snack money. So jeff brings his barbarians wielding his HACKS to a con and one shots everyone and everything. But he got it in the adventure, we just went off the rails a bit. Now obvious hyperbole aside you can see how this could get out of hand. Say the level 18 cleric in their off time goes around raising the dead for people charging cost +50% now all of a sudden that cleric could have significantly more gold then literally anyone else, then buys a bunch of gear that shouldn't be able to be afforded yet. By saying that you get the loot in the adventure and nothing else you are assuring an even playing field. That as well as the bookeeping nightmare is a big reason crafting is a no go in PFS as well.
I just don't understand why there is a conversation here. Chaos wants to play a game that is fundamentally not PFS gameplay. It doesn't matter if he or she understands why the rules are the rules, they simply are the rules and must be followed. I can't go to a basketball league and say I want to play, but i don't actually want to play their game i want horse instead. It sucks that there isn't a home campaign that you could play near you but what your asking simply is very different from what pfs is.
Sidenote (more like novella): Trust me characters can be broken in a co-op game, and that can make the game not fun. For instance, Combat round one: your fighter rolls a 15+2 for initiative. My gunslinger rolls 11+11. Well I guess I'm going first, I use my boots of haste and take my 7 shots, deal 215 damage and the boss dies. Ok cool, well maybe your fighter can break down this locked door. Oh but the gunslinger took this 3rd party feat that lets him use dex to engineering, oh and he can use engineering as a strength check. You roll a 19+5, man your strong a 24 is pretty good but of the gunslinger rolled a 3, surely you beat him but no wait he adds 24 to the check. Well today wasn't your day but now we have to talk the the baron of the land to acquire provisions for the whatsamajiggit, at least the cleric can use his diplom...oh no the gunslinger gets to add his engineering to that? Oh because of his mask he can make an intimidate instead of a diplomacy? and he gets to use a strength check instead of the intimidate roll, oh and since we are back to a strength check he gets to use engineering. Oh he can use engineering or dex for every skill but like 4? Oh and he has items that just auto succeed on those, well that's good i guess. So 3 fights, 1 talk, a half pizza and a 2 liter of pop later the person playing the gunslinger thanks you for the game and leaves. You and the other players would put away your stuff, but you did that an hour ago when you realized the gunslinger was going to solo the entire adventure.
So a paladin of serenrae and a barbarian walk into a bar. The bartender says which of you lose your class powers? pally's are LG which means in any one scenario over half of your options are removed for decision making. Lets use the pally and barb, so you beat the bad guy and your options are take a bribe and let him go. Kill him, he cant be redeemed. or turn him into the police. Well you have one option because of the pally, because all other options are "wrong."
Half my pc's get put in my bag if i go to a con and someone plays a paladin.
Oh you summon undead, nope
oh your eidolon is evil/demon/devil, nope
oh you're a mind control caster, nope
oh you're a barb who takes no surrender, nope
oh you worship an evil god, nope
So to kind of side tangent for a second, where does it say you can change the size of named items? I don't disagree that it makes sense that you should be able to, but last I knew it didn't say anywhere.
I ask because if it can be done, the reason why it can be done could clear things up.
If it can be done because there are already existing rules on resizing, then any named gear could be made into "armor for unusual creatures because that also has a rule for it.
Also who can buy what size gear? Can my gnome buy a small holy avenger? Can my titan fighter buy a large one? Can a pixie get a tiny one?
The rules on this matters and I found the dismissal of some is the OP's questions extremely rude and unnecessary.
I mean the best thing to do is look at your pc and say allright, what really f@##s me over? Oh if the creature can fly I cant do anything= get a way to deal with fly(ie. scroll of fly or even just a ranged option), Swarms= either your going to need some alchemist flasks or if your martial a swarmbane clasp is super helpful. Just find your weak points, try to find some way to help in any encounter, my superstitious barbarian carries a jar of flour because that is the closest way i can handle invisibility.
You know I have been reading this for a while now and I have written this post a few times and then deleted it because i didn't want to sound like an ass. But seriously the b@#@~ing about burn is ridiculous. It isn't that bad and the arguments have been cyclical about it. I mean complaining about the kineticists burn is like complaining that barbarians rage. Building a barbarian with a 20 Chr and wanting to do diplomacy is never going to work well, can you do it still, sure. Building a kineticist that never takes burn is doable but super inefficient. Saying you want a kineticist that doesn't use burn is like saying you want a barbarian that doesn't rage. I mean i get that you might not like a class but complaining that a square isn't a circle is absurd.
So i'm just going to trow some context into this real quick. I'm seeing a lot of "rule of cool" he should get to do it posts. But in reality what happened was the big scary giant grappled and put the pc in the catapult and launched him. We were curious if feather fall would of helped him not die.
Nope, sounds an awful lot like your gm's just a dick. One, that is at best deserving of a warning but not a full switch. Second to me this act is right in the gray area between chaotic good and chaotic neutral. Now a paladin is a little different since you have your code to worry about, but due to the last two points I think that this is a non issue. Lastly I would recommend just talking to the GM and saying, "listen, is this a Sophie's choice issue and we either kill the bad guy or let the kid die?" It sounds like there is a misunderstanding somewhere, because imo letting a child get killed and not stopping it is just as evil as killing a helpless bad guy.
I just hope that the playe talked to his GM, watching you all try and discuss things is going to give me an aneurism. Here is what the rules are. You can make just about any item you could imagine. The GM can say no to any item you could imagine. Nobody cares what "you would do in your game" it only matters whether his GM finds it acceptable.
I'm seeing a lot of people being a&+@~~~s for almost no reason. How bout we calm down on insulting the player guys? The simple answer is at +20 you are so far out of the rules that it really is your GM's call, but CL isn't a limitation here. However, A situation where you could afford this item would be absurd
So is there any chance we may get to see our good buddies the Thassalonian wizards? I mean sure I could make something up, but I'm a society boy at heart and cannon is cannon.
We have seen where some of them are but to my knowledge this is all we know of the big bads from the original AP. Now I know these guys are like your babies and maybe you want to keep them close to your chest. But these guys are my Aroden. I could care less if he is dead or alive, but the location of the three parts of the gluttonous tome? Can you here me throwing money at the screen?
Anyway, other than my question i guess I was wondering if this all seemed correct.
Runelords:
Alaznist: Hollow Mountain? Status: Unknown
Sorshen: Beneath the grand temple of Korvosa. Status: Presumed Alive
Krune: Defeated during the event of waking rune. Status: Deceased
Zutha: Sealed in Tome, Somewhere on Avistan. Status: Undead
Xanderghul: Location: Unknown Status: Unknown
Belamarius: Crystalin? Status: Presumed Alive
Karzoug: Defeated during events of Rise of The Rune Lords Status: Destroyed
Lastly mayhaps next season the Osirion clocks hit 4718?
This topic is a hard one for me because i personally think the being middle of the road with much of your stats is the more optimal choice. Ie. not having 7's in the stats. However, my opinion is that if one player is causing the rest of the table to not have fun, then you need to talk to him. If he still refuses to change then let him walk.
I think one of the issues with this topic is going to be the "everyone wants it closer to them" argument. You will see the East coasters arguing for New York areas or potentially Florida. West coasters will want it to be in LA. I'm sure my desire for it to stay where it is is partly due to the fact I can drive a few hours to Indy where as I would have to fly to the other locations. Until someone gives reasons that aren't I want it place X, because I am close to place X, I'm not going to give the discussion a second thought.
To me as well. I have a lot of respect for Gygax as one of the reasons our hobby exists today in all it's many forms. But just because he's one of our 'founding fathers' doesn't mean that all his ideas and opinions should be taken as 'best practices'. :-)
Holy moly does this ever need to be said LOUDER.
I pretty much let you know what the expectations are at any table I run. I pretty much curate my groups, I want to play with a certain type of person a certain type of player. If my game isnt to your liking? Okay you should find one that is more to your liking.
But the idea that me customizing the game to my liking is cheating?
GTFOH.
I think your gut reaction is a little strong. Look at it if we used PFS. You having a home campaign where every starts with 20's and every stat is great, for your game. But when little jimmy brings his mythic assimar archmage to my tier 3-7 pfs game, he is cheating. Focus on gygax stating the "real campaign or tournament" part. It is only cheating in the sense of, once you deviate from "the rules" you no longer can play by "those rules."
This I should kind of a thread derailment but, as someone who primarily uses English but knows a few other languages well enough to read and write, technology makes it grammatically difficult. With my keyboard I can either write coup de grace, or I can re-learn what combination of alternative key let's me write â. Strangely enough, coup de grâce is easier for me on mobile as I have multi-lingual keyboards.
My two cents is to look at your appropriate school's arcane discoveries. Then look at your party comp. Then look at your spell list. Your goal is going to be mitigating your largest weaknesses while utilizing the class for its strengths. For instance look at an evocation wizard, what are weaknesses for a blaster caster. Magic immunity, energy resist, saves, and melee combat. Now magic immunity there isn't much you can do. Energy resist we can look at the add mixture wizard and gain the ability to change type. Saves we will either be boosting with feats or byt taking spells that don't have a save/have good effects even on a save. Now for melee, we have to look at party comp, without a frontline you SOL, so try and stay back and not be the one getting hit. For what "type" of transmutation you are going to go for I would heavily consider party comp, if you already have a ranger, bard, sorcerer, and rogue maybe it is best to help the fighter out on the front lines and be a giant elemental. The inverse is true as well. Say your party is all fighters, barbarians, and warpriests, maybe you should hang back and baleful polymorph some enemies, or buff them with some spells.
Pay for spellcasting of an atonement, take the level of monk. Revert to old ways. Lose the ability to take further monk levels bit retain what you had. In character maybe you character "wanted to make a change of heart and become a monk, started to learn the basics, and then was like, this sucks, I'm going to leave."
