Would anyone care to crunch the numbers for something like a dagger? I'm curious to see if the "extra dice for an action" version beats "-1/+2" for even the tiniest weapon dice.
In PF1e I've played martial characters who used daggers because, as we all know, eventually the actual damage dice barely matter to your output, and it was the style I wanted.
I've been playing with numbers for a while, and what I came up with is bigger weapons are better in the new system especially if you factor in DR. That said we don't know when the die bump for power attack happens or exactly what monster DR will look like (or if it even exists). But there is far more limited benefit to Power attacking with a 1d4 weapon when the damage die multiplies versus a 2d6 (or 1d12)
Examples:
Example: Fighter +26 to hit +16 damage one handing a longsword AC 30 creature no DR
Full Attack 1*die - 36.9 EDV
Full Attack 2*die - 41.11 EDV
Same fighter with a knife vs. AC 30 no DR
Full Attack (1*die) - 31.84
Full Attack (2*die) - 34.18
And that's only the difference between a d4 and a d8. (It gets more significant if you look at the difference between say a dagger and a great sword or add in DR for the creature)
So, first I will say we obviously don't have full information to compare so I'm making assumptions here.
...
I don't think anything I've built is by any means an edge case or particularly out there.
Fully agreeing with you on the caveat that you don't have full information right now. Notwithstanding that two-handing a longsword is not a particularly common longsword build and a bit of a cherrypick compared to one-handed longsword or two-handed greatsword, your numbers fit right in with thflame's: He said that PF1 Power Attack is better if you are fighting something where your bonus is high enough to hit on a 1 before the Power Attack on the first attack, which is what we have in your example. With my insight from playing and running playtests, that's not going to be a super common situation, though I have certainly seen it happen in PF2 several times.
That's a pretty common to hit bonus for a 12th level fighter (I certainly could have powered it up more), and a mook that he should be encountering fairly regularly in PF1 for stats. I'm not trying to make any crazy arguments (and I've certainly seen plenty of two handed longswords used), but if you prefer
+26 to hit (+12 BAB, +7 STR (17 starting, 3 from leveling, +4 belt - 24 str), +3 sword at level 12 (about 1/6 average wealth for your weapon as a fighter is reasonable), +2 from weapon training, +2 from 2 feats)
One Handed Longsword EDVs
Full Attack PF1 - 51.73
Full Attack (one die) - 43.04
Full Attack (two die) - 47.74
Oddly one handing you fall behind over two handing (not accounting for actions to raise shields and such)
Two Handed Greatsword
Full Attack PF1 - 73.15
Full Attack (1*die) 53.05
Full Attack Greatsword (two*die) 60.36
Or we could go to 2 handed longsword versus a boss/mini boss type (CR+3, AC 30)
Full Attack PF1 - 46.86
Full Attack (1*die) - 41.69
Full Attack (2*die) - 45.9
Full Attack PF1/PF2 (no power attack) - 46.53
So how bout 1 handed longsword against AC 30
Full Attack PF1 - 37.62
Full Attack 1*die - 36.9
Full Attack 2*die - 41.11
Full Attack PF1/PF2 (no power attack) - 40.59
2 Handed Greatsword
Full Attack PF1 - 50.16
Full Attack 1*die - 48.02
Full Attack 2*die - 54.56
Full Attack PF1/PF2 (no power attack) - 51.48
Like I said, I don't think it can be definitively called better or worse Power Attack is/was situational as is and there are seemingly pros and cons to each version
So power attack Is a lot worse now? Since going from a flat +2/+3 somewhat scalable damage to a single random damage die amount?
Power Attack gives you one (and actually, eventually two without taking another feat to improve it!) extra damage die and does not penalize you on accuracy; and you don't want a penalty on accuracy. For a d12 two-handed weapon that might have gotten +3 damage (+3 more every 4 BAB) in PF1, that's 6.5 damage on average, going up to 13. It wasn't until BAB 16 that you would do more damage than that in PF1, and that was at a cost of -5 accuracy.
Maybe, but that also discounts the iterative attacks versus single attack. At a glance I'm gonna say it's more complicated than either side it willing to admit right now.
Actually, theflame fixed the bug in his code (it actually was counting all misses that weren't critical failures as hits, which is a pretty big issue from a pretty small line of code). He posted his findings here.
That's cool, except I didn't use his coding at all. I did a pure EDV calc and I showed it's results just below below where you quoted me. His way is fine for a comparison, but not a very good case using a traditionally rare die (d12 - yes I know that was your example as well) and not accounting well for statics which may be further discounted in PF2 but are incredibly important in PF1. A 12th level fighter with 1d12 + 4 is not a fitting case. I don't find it reasonable to say for sure that the new Power Attack is better, it has advantages certainly but it also has drawbacks (from what we can see so far). I by no means am making any final determination, but I don't think it is simply better or simply worse right now.
Edit: Also, we both know by using a d12 for comparison you're choosing the best case scenario (basic weapon) for the new system. I chose an absolutely average weapon to show a middle of the line case. If you take the comparison instead with a say a heavy shield (1d4 at medium) the new power attack looks worse than either set of comparisons.
So, first I will say we obviously don't have full information to compare so I'm making assumptions here. If I build a generic fighter level 12, 24 STR, a +3 longsword (let's be honest here, the longsword not a d12 weapon is the iconic weapon that is most likely to show up in a printed adventure), was Weapon Training 2, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec - all for longsword.
I'm going to assume all of that translates reasonable well to PF2 given what's above. He will be two hand attacking in all math
That gives me a fighter with +26/+21/+16 (1d8+19) 19-20x2
So let's breakdown the math from there. (All attacks versus AC 27 - average AC according to Monster Generation Tables for a CR 12 creature)
PF1 Fighter (power attack penalties and additional damage accounted for)
Single Attack (power attacking)- 31.24 EDV
Full Attack (power attacking) - 64.43 EDV
PF2 Fighter (single die at this point, since I don't know where the breakpoint is)
Single Power Attack - 29.26 EDV (taking 2 actions)
Full Attack (not sure this is possible, but if I use the extra action I have left to attack as well) - 44.77 EDV
PF2 Fighter (2 extra die)
Single Attack 33.96 EDV
Full Attack - 52.47 EDV.
I don't think anything I've built is by any means an edge case or particularly out there.
So power attack Is a lot worse now? Since going from a flat +2/+3 somewhat scalable damage to a single random damage die amount?
Power Attack gives you one (and actually, eventually two without taking another feat to improve it!) extra damage die and does not penalize you on accuracy; and you don't want a penalty on accuracy. For a d12 two-handed weapon that might have gotten +3 damage (+3 more every 4 BAB) in PF1, that's 6.5 damage on average, going up to 13. It wasn't until BAB 16 that you would do more damage than that in PF1, and that was at a cost of -5 accuracy.
Maybe, but that also discounts the iterative attacks versus single attack. At a glance I'm gonna say it's more complicated than either side it willing to admit right now. No accuracy penalty is huge. The EDV increase is great. Extra dice are traditionally bad however compared to static modifiers. That said we as readers (versus you as staff) don't know exactly what equipment looks like/other interactions that come into the evaluation.
So, first I will say we obviously don't have full information to compare so I'm making assumptions here. If I build a generic fighter level 12, 24 STR, a +3 longsword (let's be honest here, the longsword not a d12 weapon is the iconic weapon that is most likely to show up in a printed adventure), was Weapon Training 2, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec - all for longsword.
I'm going to assume all of that translates reasonable well to PF2 given what's above. He will be two hand attacking in all math
That gives me a fighter with +26/+21/+16 (1d8+19) 19-20x2
So let's breakdown the math from there. (All attacks versus AC 27 - average AC according to Monster Generation Tables for a CR 12 creature)
PF1 Fighter (power attack penalties and additional damage accounted for)
Single Attack (power attacking)- 31.24 EDV
Full Attack (power attacking) - 64.43 EDV
PF2 Fighter (single die at this point, since I don't know where the breakpoint is)
Single Power Attack - 29.26 EDV (taking 2 actions)
Full Attack (not sure this is possible, but if I use the extra action I have left to attack as well) - 44.77 EDV
PF2 Fighter (2 extra die)
Single Attack 33.96 EDV
Full Attack - 52.47 EDV.
So maybe the new full attack is better, I can't prove it using an "average" fighter comparison, but I don't have nearly enough information. I will say it ended up closer than I thought it might, but it looks like it could easily be a downgrade from the Power Attack we have now. Of course as we see more monsters, equipment, actual feats etc. the comparison points could be more favorable to the new Power Attack, we just don't know yet.
1. Scroll Scholar (Pathfinder Society Field Guide) - changes both Wizard and Cleric, give up some secondary abilities for a lot of flavor and great powers later. Played through Reign of Winter with it on Cleric, only archetype for the class that I thought was worthwhile for both crunch and fluff purposes. Works well with both classes.
2. Tattooed Sorcerer (Inner Sea Magic) affects sorcerer, go figure, - Great archetype not overpowered, but it's inclusions can be really nice.
3. Thug (APG) changes Rogue, I like the concept of a more physical thief than a cat burgular. Frankly Rogue has more good archetypes than almost any class. Vexing Dodger, Rake, Counterfeit Mage, Knife Master, all had a chance of making my list, and as a concept I love the Deadly Courtesan (but disliked the mechanics so I made a "deadly courtesan" with a completely different class)
4. Infiltrator (APG) affects Ranger. Makes the ranger more about knowing their foes and their foes terrain to use the foes strength to overcome them. I like it a lot, though 1. Ranger has a ton of archetypes and 2. the Hunter is far more what the Ranger always should have been than the Ranger base class.
5. Warpriest (ACG) - yeah I know it's a full class right now, but I think it's more what I really want from the Paladin class. It does a lot of the same stuff (Sacred Weapon/Armor) more effectively, the casting is better, the BAB is worse. But all together it is the holy warrior of the system. IMO it's the most balanced class mechanically to come out of any book since at least the APG maybe even the core. It's flexible and can be what the player wants without the overshadowing demands of a single alignment.
If it's cool I'll jump in late Canis Dirus invited. I have all the armies unlocked though everything I have in tier is low CHA. (I know that going in not overly worried, personally.)
Personally, I'd say the inclusion on a chronicle sheet would a potential reason they weren't included, unless further clarification were to be offered by Paizo staff.
Also, for characters with CHA 10 or better you can always embed the Ioun stones between sessions (basically takin away the negative consequence of failure) as per a Mike Brock ruling from 2012
1. One of my favorite homegame characters was a cleric of an Iron God who used Sacred Geometry and Arithmancy to show a connection with the patterns and math of the world.
2. Both feats are from Occult Mysteries
3. Sacred Geometry shouldn't be PFS legal. It's incredibly powerful and potentially hugely timeconsuming. I only know one other player personally that I'd allow to use it.
Arithmacy on the other hand gives up a swift action to get at best a +1 bump to caster level. Other than the charting (which the player should be doing before the session IMO) to figure out what the DC of the check is no real reason it couldn't be included in PFS play
Perth - How they got 9 skills at level 1?
Medium (4) int (2) Human Skilled (1) FCB (1) - maybe mentored was seen as a dot not a bonus or something boosted but not dotted?
Climb and Swim don't have ranks in them, but Hero Lab stat blocks like to include them. Both of them are +2 for strength, +1 for Champion. Perth has 7 skill ranks.
Will take a stab at the build bits - Guessing some of it gets caught in the
Perth - Where they are getting so much damage? (+2 needed)
Seance Boon: You gain a +2 bonus on all non-spell damage rolls.
I saw the spirit bonus didn't think of the Seance boon being calculated in though. Ooc, wouldn't there also be a penalty to Initiative in that case though. I don't know medium very well.
Quote:
Gwinn - How did they get 12 skills at level 1?
Rogue (8) int (2) Human Skilled (1) FCB (1) - with fast learner for the hp as well
Makes sense, I had quick counted feats and assumed that focused study took away skilled not a feat, but turns out weapon finesse from finesse training takes care of it.
Quote:
Perth - How they got 9 skills at level 1?
Medium (4) int (2) Human Skilled (1) FCB (1) - maybe mentored was seen as a dot not a bonus or something boosted but not dotted?
Could be, not sure
Quote:
Brackish - second trait:
Something for perception as a class skill as Shaman do not get it and it is pirate goodness
Ahh yep that could totally be it. I remembered something about the Hamatulatsu was wrong and couldn't find it quickly on my way out of work. The feat not the archetype, my bad.
Both versions of Michiko have a +1 frost katana listed in her attack line, but her gear lists a +1 katana, and there's no +1 frost katana on the chronicle sheet. Also, an antipaladin divine bond can't replicate the frost property. Am I missing something, or is there a mismatch there? (It just seems like a lot for a low-level npc to have a 8000-ish gp weapon.)
Pretty sure it's supposed to be cold damage from the Graveknight template Channel Destruction ability, but I don't have the scenario in front of me to double check.
I have a local player who was looking through the builds for any tricks they may want to include in a future build for themselves and they were asking me for clarifications on what they found. Below I listed the questions I couldn't answer.
Mechanics questions:
Perth - Where they are getting so much damage? (As far as I can tell they are getting 2 extra damage on every attack, though the ranged damage at least is probably just meant to be a composite longbow with a +2 strength rating, though it is a regular longbow according to the stat block)
Perth - How they got 9 skills at level 1? (by my count 7 made sense, 8 if they hadn't put FCB into hp)
Brackish - What's the character's second trait? (The first is reactionary) - Not super important, as there didn't seem to be anything mechanically missing but they were still curious
Gwinn - How did they get 12 skills at level 1? (I could account for 10, 11 if they hadn't included FCB to hp)
Ran it yesterday, was able to get it done in 4 hours on the nose. I don't suggest it. It felt extremely pressured (on me) to try and keep the table on track and from doing almost anything distracting other than one short break (bathrooms and such are needed). I'd highly recommend at least 5 if not 6 hours as a more likely time to get them all done.
Loot question The gust of wind wand is listed at 18 charges cost 4050
For a second level spell wand that would be 45 charges should it be a 45 charge wand or cost 1620 for an 18 charge wand. (there is no mechanical reason to give a gust of wind wand a higher caster level)
I caught this too - is it supposed to be a CL 3 wand at that price (I, too, see no mechanical need for it to be), or should it be edited to cost 1620?
Thanks!
Umm, the mechanical reason for CL 3 is that it's the minimum caster level for it to be cast at all (druid 2, sorc/wiz 2). Though if you're asking if there is a possibility that it be a higher caster level, that provides two problems 1) there is no caster level effect to the spell, so there's no reason for it to be and 2) even if it were the math works out to make that CL 7.5, so no probably not that either. The most likely conclusion is it was mispriced as a 3rd level spell instead of a 2nd level spell. As there are two possible solutions to work out the correct price (either 45 charges or 1620 gp) I think the only solution GMs can use at the moment is to avoid the wand altogether and use one of the other locations.
I've done one for Thornkeep before, I'll have to see if I can find it anywhere. Pretty sure I used Ambrus Valsin and included some small clue about the door jewel placement
Now I dont think anyone should do this but my question is is there any rule against it.
Can a player make a character that is a straight wizard with and int of 8. Gaining next to nothing from the class and being a terrible character.
Is there any rule preventing this?
Your mileage may vary, while the character may be legally built you may find GMs/players/regions who find a character designed in this way to be a violation of the "Don't be jerk" rule as it is being purposely designed to be ineffective.
In a high level module I watched a friend roll a two against a disentigrate, use his reroll ability only to Nat 1. (By the way he would have made the save on a 3 or 4) And that character was no more.
Thats really not feasible for pfs. You can't get a +2 weapon much before level 6ish , and PFs is halfway done by them.
I agree that two agile weapons is fairly unfeasible for an entire build in PFS. The only way potential I see around it is a DEX monk with an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists, even the though you're looking at flurrying not really dual wielding. Otherwise an unchained monk is by far the most viable option. (In fact my DEX monk has 4 levels of Unchained Rogue as I found the dip far more viable.)
I've GMed 5 almost TPKs sometimes a person or two made it out, more often than not most made it out alive with at most 1 actually dead with another one or more unconscious. Death is a part of being an adventurer, while I'm not out to kill the players (and don't really care for it when it happens) the characters I'm running are just as the pathfinders are out to kill them.
All of these situations arose from one of three situations or a combination of them.
a) An under prepared party - generally a bad mix of classes/characters at the table. Most recent example, party of 5 Rogue (spent most of his time on a flying carpet, dealing next to no damage), Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, Gunslinger. Best chance of using a wand was the first rogue's UMD of +5. High CHA score at the table was 10 and the only trained social skill at the table was Intimidate. They made it out alive (with one guy rocking 6 CHA damage on a 7 CHA character and significant damage), had it not been for a NAT 1 on my part I don't think they would have made it out at all. Had one player brought a different character or grabbed a pregen (most likely Seelah or Kyra) they would have had a much easier time. There are a lot of scenarios in which they may have been successful, but a more versatile party would have a better chance overall.
b) Custom Monster vastly mis-CRed or monster with deceptively low CR for actual challenge. Examples without spoilers - harpies, ghouls and cuestodaemons come to mind.
One more example includes scenario name:
Final combat in the high tier on Fortress of the Nail matches the average CR stats for a monster of CR 16 or 17 in a 5-9, and gets a pretty massive home court advantage on top.
c) A bad player decision leads to an almost perfect storm of enemy advantage. Most recent example. In a 7-11, 6 players 5 11's and an 8 (bard). Make it through the entire scenario with relative ease until the final boss. Make it to boss and arrange themselves with ample opportunity to prepare/pre-buff. Player 1 suggests prebuffing, Player 2 suggests checking on the McGuffin to see just how hard it's going to be. Player 3 follows Player 2's idea. Turns out it was pretty easy. Combat begins instantly with the players in really bad shape. Fight ended with 1 player dead (twice - Breath of Life), 2 players each at 1 HP, 1 player at 17 or so HP, and the last player at 52 or so. They made some good tactical decisions after the first round and earlier in the scenario that helped them a lot, but it was still 1 or so round from a TPK. Had they pre-buffed there likely would have been some damage done to them, but not nearly so much and it probably would have saved the Bard's lives. (As a note I've seen the same boss killed in a single round by a different party)
I don't think I'm a killer GM in fact of 130+ tables I've outright killed less than 10 characters (and I think less than 5 even), but sometimes a TPK can be a good learning experience (and even a cool story later at times)
The specials were my bane, I had 3 last May, and got my 10th Special at GenCon 2016.
** spoiler omitted **
An aside to the Aside:
While the 10 specials crunch is certainly felt in some (maybe even a lot of) places, I had my 10 specials just before my 4th star. This was in the past year. In that time I think I only ran one special twice. Off the top of my head, Bonekeep 1, Race for the Runcarved Key 1, Siege of Serpents * 2, Sky Key Solution, True Dragons of Absalom, Serpenet's Rise, Serpent's Ire, Cosmic Captive, and Through the Maelstrom Rift. About half of those don't even require a convention to run these days making it significantly easier to run some, though most require that you be a 4* GM already. Going to conventions certainly eases the burden on getting specials done but it is no longer the requirement it once was. On the other hand I know one 4* GM who has 300+ tables but not 10 specials.
Edit: Turns out I was wrong on timing - the 10 the special hit at table 115
Due to the most current ruling on Ninjas (i.e. not being able to be Unchained) and the release of a couple of Ninja archetypes I'd lean towards no to be on the safe side.
Probably, but I'm not sure it doesn't defeat the purpose of Core.
An aside:
Frankly if we were allowed to add 1 book APG wouldn't even be in my top 3 for addition. I think Ultimate Equipment would be a sensible addition. The Field Guide and Primer make a lot of sense too. I'd like Unchained and the ACG better than the APG for classes.
Other points aside, I'm very impressed with your in-depth knowledge of the demographics of the player base. To know exactly what every player with one of these rings is using it for, across all of PFS? Now that is impressive.
Especially since I don't particularly recall anyone else saying anything about this being abused with any great frequency.
Of course, I'm also trying to figure out why this is really that much worse than a fox form kitsune with a potion of fly, or overland flight from a scroll. I mean, yeah, people aren't going to ignore a flying fox, but people don't generally ignore a songbird indoors or underground, either. Also, that fox can pop in and out of animal form at will, has no time limits, better flight maneuverability, etc.
Yeah and it costs them significant;y more to do it. 3 potions of fly cost more than the ring, let alone the difference in price of the ring and a ring of protection (+1).
Don't get me wrong I think the fox-form kitsune is ridiculous OP too (and am hoping the trait in Blood of Beast that makes it doable at 1st level doesn't make it), but in comparison the ring is generally worse.
I'm familiar with the archetype. I still don't see why it's banned.
While you are familiar as the person asking the question, many of us are not. It is generally a good policy to leave a link to the rule/archetype you are asking about, in this case I believe Nefreet was taking care of that for you.
That said, while some people may be able to give you there opinion on why it was banned, it is unlikely to be definitively answered. The traditional reasons for banning something include:
1) Flavor reasons - i.e. it's evil, linked to some non-Pathfinder organization, linked to some rare weird thing, it doesn't fit the flavor of PFS (in Golarion)
2)Crunch i.e. it's overpowered, there's an odd rule interaction that is either highly exploitable or commonly interpreted differently to what was intended, it's linked to something that was already banned so as to prevent a backdoor into a banned option,
3)Other i.e. Being saved for a potential boon, being saved for an upcoming enemy/story arc
Since the newer ruling has bee made by the Campaign Coordinator (at the time) it is the ruling that takes precedence for PFS play. Right now you can get extra slot this way in PFS.
(It probably should be/have been changed in the FAQ as well though)
As an aside, I haven't been following the Starfinder discussion at all. Does anybody know if they're planning on taking the opportunity to essentially create Pathfinder version 2.0? Simplify lots of things, try and bring various characters in line power wise, etc.
The single biggest thing that is coming close to driving me from PFS is the power creep. One major reason that I like Core games. Unfortunately, Core is dead locally (yes, I tried. Managed to keep it going for about 9 months before it died) so the only place I get to play is online
I'm not sure about what's on the boards, I know there are people who know the answer to your question (as there is a playtest group out there), but since they're under a NDA they won't be able to answer your question.
Clerics and druids don't have to trade with one another except in core, because they automatically get all the spells available from their deities or the natural world. There were divine spellbooks in Arcane Anthology, though, so maybe this will be more of a thing.
I would like to see spellbooks open up a bit more as an option though. I love the idea of trading spells with other players. Dumb question... can you only scribe spells from your list? If I dipped magus, would I be only able to scribe magus spells, or could I scribe all arcane spells? So many questions arise here.
Hmm
Traditionally, only spells on your list. Magus can take spells on both list from wizard and vice versa, even more interesting an Alchemist can scribe to their formula book from a Wizard or Magus (or others potentially, assuming it's on their list), but a Wizard can't scribe from the Alchemist
In fact it would potentially save some headaches/variation in a secondary arena. In core Wizards can learn non-Core spells by adding them to their spellbook, IIRC this ruling extended (in some fashion) to Sorcerer as well. What about Divine Casters who 'know' all their spells by prayer' by allowing a spellbook (even possibly reflavored as prayerbook/hymnal) extends that ability to all casters
Core allows non wizards to gain access to non core spells if they appear as a scroll on the chronicle and you purchase and expend it. This applies to divine as well as arcane casters as far as I am aware.
It could, I remember it being Sorcerer, but it is a while ago. The visibility would be nice, and making it adding to a spellbook just makes it easily visible and allows clerics the ability to trade with each other the way wizards can which extends beyond the scroll in scenario possibility. (Same with Druids and Sorcerers for that matter)
As much as I like the archetype (and mechanically I think it's a straight upgrade to base bard), I think it's fair to have a significant cost to building up the library of scrolls/spellbooks for the bard (whether it's opportunity cost in dipping out for a spellbook class or in buying named spellbooks and scrolls). You're functionally getting an upgraded Mnemonic Vestments for free that stacks with Mnemonic Vestments. That said there are a number of archetypes (and even items) that don't fit the original spellbook design (i.e. Wizard only), it would be nice to see a set ruling put somewhere more visible like Campaign clarifications so that it becomes a set and known policy.
In fact it would potentially save some headaches/variation in a secondary arena. In core Wizards can learn non-Core spells by adding them to their spellbook, IIRC this ruling extended (in some fashion) to Sorcerer as well. What about Divine Casters who 'know' all their spells by prayer, by allowing a spellbook (even possibly reflavored as prayerbook/hymnal) extends that ability to all casters.
Aasimar Swashbuckler (7.2)
Aasimar GM/Dragons Demand Blob (6)
Tiefling Paladin 5/Oracle 4 (claims to be a double gnome)
Gnome Sorcerer 8 (adoptive father of Tiefling)
Human (Ulfen) Warpriest 5 (originally intended to be a half-orc)
Wayang Alchemist 2
I have 2 Ifrit and 1 Sylph boons as well, but not sure what I'll do with them.
From my experience with in the nerf of the wild enhancement was pretty necessary from the balance standpoint, though there are many who disagree.
Wild as with all armors usefulness will vary greatly depending on your DEX. If you're a low dex druid using a low dex form, wearing +1 Wild Dragonhide Full Plate is probably worth the expenditure over Mage Armor. Conversely if you're going to a decently high DEX form, mage armor is probably the better investment. (I highly recommend a Wand Key Ring and some investment in UMD in this case) The only other advantage of wild is that you can stack other enhancements on top, especially at high level play.
A tangential discussion of all armor in Pathfinder:
There is an underlying issue with armors in Pathfinder (and back to 3.5) that makes this the case. There are functionally three armors in Pathfinder (despite there existing far more), a Chainshirt, a Breastplate, and Full-plate. Assuming you take the maximum DEX bonus in each, full-plate ends up with 2 more AC than a chainshirt, but for all but 3 classes it takes at least one feat (if not 2) for proficiency and hinders your movement (assuming you don't have armor training 2). Furthermore it costs more to start out with and more to make out of a special material. A Mithril Chainshirt allows you the same amount to your AC (+4 Armor +6 DEX) as a Full-plate (+9/+1), allows full movement, is usable by almost every class in the game (sorry druids and monks), and allows you room to increase your DEX without going above the MAX DEX. There are builds that take advantage of heavier armors well, but light and no armor wearers generally make the best tanks in game. This slight favoring of light armor is actually further increased by a number of the light armor wearing classes getting innate (generally Dodge) bonuses to AC and possibly other nice methods of defense (I'm looking at you Opportune Parry and Riposte). Heavy Armor is generally the best in early game where it is also a very significant amount of a characters capital, but light armor generally scales better.
To go above and beyond that mage armor can be used innately by relatively few classes (compared to other very common core spells), but gives the same AC bonus as a chainshirt with no max dex, then it also works against incorporeal. However, it can't be enchanted and has no scaling so for most classes it's nice early, but late it's an add-on or a 1/day cast at best. That said certain classes can make great use of it (monks and druids come to mind first) due to class restrictions and their ability to stack other kinds of AC bonuses onto themselves.
are any of the encounters supposed to be optional? There's a lot of encounters.
I ran it three times at GenCon, never had any issues with time. (Low Tier, High Tier w/ 4player adjustment, and High Tier) First encounter is a joke, the final encounter is more a puzzle than a combat, and the haunt never really amounted to much across my tables. Hydra is a good attacker, but pretty low HP, crypt fight probably took the longest.
All the Extra Traits I've gotten in the past have been 2012, haven't found one in the last year. So my next character might go Extra Trait-less ;-(
I've seen a few extra traits (with restrictions) since then. At least one multi-table special gave one, the PaizoCon boons often given access to campaign traits (2014 was Mummy's Mask and 2015 Giantslayer - don't remember others), One scenario gives access to a faction trait. I don't think there's been a full extra trait since then though.
Joe, what's the exact language on boon? Didn't get a. Chance to see it. (The actual boon. Not the title/tier)
Summary is it gives 10 replays for you or your friends, that go above and beyond normal replay rules. To be fair, I don't see many people getting rid of theirs without a fairly significant reason. (other than apparently Jon Dehning). From what I heard they were given to volunteers who braved the heat of the Sag for set-up/tear down and a few others. I'd be very hard pressed to trade mine away.
So I compiled my notes all into one post as I stayed off my computer for all of GenCon.
Locally, GenCon started on Tuesday as a number of materials had to be mad ready for GenCon and a trip up to the Convention Center was needed after dinner, then back home and to bed to get ready for the rest of the marathon.
Wednesday, got up a bit late packed and headed back to Indy. Got checked into the Westin and in the Sag (wow that walk is convenient). Then sat in the room with a couple of locals and handed out some maps while our VC went to the VC dinner. (Got to meet TOZ and Eric Brittain among others whose names I'm forgetting atm, sorry. I hear a BigNorseWolf sighting was also had on Thursday but I missed that one)
Thursday - Slot 1 - Went to the Paizo booth to pick up a couple of maps and Path of the Hellknight (which Wes Schneider was kind enough to sign and put up with my geeking out a bit). got to close to John Compton as he was selling things, and now I'm the proud (but unplanned) owner of Monica Marlowe's Down the Blighted Path looks pretty fantastic so far.
Slot 2 - Table didn't fire, ran into a couple of locals who recently moved up to Indy, went walking around the dealer hall, then caught an early dinner with them at Dick's Last Resort, food was surprisingly good.
Slot 3 - Serpent's Ire. Had a table full of people I knew which was pretty cool, I'll review the scenario separately at some point.
Friday - Slot 4 - Slept in a bit and then headed over to the Take N' Paint. It's one of my favorite haunts during the Con, free minis and a chance to paint them, also gives my voice a chance to rest.
Slot 5 - Beyond Azlant Ridge fired, low tier all 4th level pregens, all new to fairly new players, it went well til the end, then not so much. Gunslinger I just finished playing ended up paying off right away.
Slot 6 - Cosmic Captive - had a table of very nice people, one of whom I had GMed for the previous year. (4 out of the 7 were playing pregens plus two animal companions made combats go fairly long, but otherwise a good experience) The new AV set-up was freakin' great.
Saturday - Slot 7 - Sleep
Slot 8 - Beyond Azlant Ridge, this time high tier 4 player adjusted.
Think I had 2 pregens in this one, but the table did really quite well. Also, they did something next to impossible to the BBEG, right after I had talked to Linda Zayas-Palmer about the unlikelihood of it happening.
Slot 9 - Through Maelstrom Rift. Ran for 4 players - all fairly new, but they picked it up well. Gave them a good 15-20 minutes before the briefing to let them familiarize themselves with the characters and had James McTeague's cheat sheets, both of which helped immensely. Probably my favorite of this year's specials - seems highly variable on run time depending on your table's interest/abilities. Combats can be pretty tough depending on how you handle them. Overall a really good experience - also my favorite question/answer in all the scenarios I've seen. Had a blast running this table. Got to chat with Mark Seifter about a number of things between games.
Sunday Slot 10 - Beyond Azlant Ridge. Ran it one last time, no pregens. Saw some really interesting builds and it ran really well.
Overall - 6/7 tables fired, 21/32 pregens (though to be fair 2 scenarios were pregen only), 6 or 7 new player numbers given out.
Not sure if it was the mornings off or the longer breaks, but my voice (and many others) seemed to hold up better this year than in the past. It was a ton of fun meeting people for the first time or talking to people I hadn't seen in a year. There are some people I missed, which seems to always happen, though I regret it. Already looking forward to next year.
