Baron Hannis Drelev

Bom Skjold's page

750 posts. Organized Play character for N N 959.



1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Is there a way to get access to uncommon weapons (like a katana) at 1st level that do not have an associated Trait like Monk, Dwarf, etc, without using Unconventional Weaponry?

Is there a way to get access to weapons that do have a Trait like Monk, Gnome, etc. without UW at 1st level? and without directly having the trait?

Thanks.


Unfortunately I still haven't had a chance to see any combat for my Investigator in combat. Even if I do, it will be a small sample size. As such, I've decided to turn to spreadsheets to see what things I might uncover. Let me add a caveat that I haven't spent that much time on this. So it's entirely possible my formulas are wrong, or I'm overlooking some modifier. Please point these out if you spot them. It's taken me longer to write this up than it took to make the math model.

Also, I am ignoring the ceiling and floor effects of rolling a 1's and 20's and crit failures/successes

Goal: There are a number of questions I was looking to explore, but the first was what was the probability of getting extra damage from Studied Strike?

1. A matrix. The first thing I did was create a matrix. The columns represent WIS modifier (0,1,2,3,4) and the Rows were DEX. I created fixed boxes for NPC Will Mod, NPC Armor Class, PC Perception Proficiency, PC Weapon Proficiency, and the bonus from Study Subject.

2. My formula: (20-NPC Armor class + Dex Modifier +Study Subject Bonus + Weapon Proficiency+1)/20*(20-10-NPC Will Save +PC Wisdom Modifier+PC Perception Modifier+1)/20

Testing the formula:
By setting NPC AC to 1, PC weapon, and Subject bonus all to zero, I should get the probability of Study Subject working for all values of PC WIS for any given Will save. So let's test that with a 1st level Investigator against a Goblin Warrior (-1 level) with a Will save of +3.

I get (starting with a WIS of 10 and ending with 18) 65%-85. As we expect every point of WIS increased the chance of Subject working by 5%

Let's test this out loud. A +3 Will means I need a 13 to beat the goblin's Will DC. At 1st level, a WIS 10 Inv gets +5 on Perception Proficiency. So that means I need to roll an 8 or better. That's exactly a 65% I look over at 16 WIS and its' a predictable 80% Formula passes the first test.

Now, let's try it the other way, we give PC Perception a 9 and zero out Subject Mod and Will save (essentially what happens when Subject Study succeeds 100% and gives no bonus). With a PC weapon proficiency of 3 against an AC of 10, we see the DEX column starts at 70% and goes in 5% increments up 90% with a 18 DEX. And that all checks out. If I zero PC weap. Prof. It drops to 55%, which is what we'd expect.

For now, I'm proceeding like this mostly works. There is some wonkiness with the fact you succed on a 16 for an AC/Will DC of 16 hence the +1's at the end. I'm also ignoring the 1's and 20's capping.
***************************

3. Results. Now, let's see how Study Subject affects probability of hitting. I'll add in all values for a Goblin's Warrior and the PC. I'm also adding+1 from Study Subject because I'm looking at the probability of Study Subject working and getting a hit. If someone thinks that's incorrect, please educate me as to why.

Goblin Warrior and 1st level Investigator
So:
NPC Will =+3
NPC AC=16
PC Weapon prof=+3
PC Perception prof = +5
Study Subject mod = +1

A 10/10 DEX/WIS Investigator has a 29% chance of hitting with the aid of Study Subject. Across the WIS row, it raises to a mere 36% with a 16 WIS (38% with 18). Down the DEX column, it rises to 39% at 16 (43% at 18). Let's double check this by assuming Study Subject works every time but gives no bonus. So raise PC Perception Prof to 12 and Subject Mod to 0 and we get 45%-65% in 5% steps along the DEX column. Which checks out. An AC 16 with a +3 hit mod means you need a 13 or better, which is 8 chances * 5% = 40%.

I took a look at a level 5 PF2 scenario. The highest Will save of any NPC is +9. The AC 22. Let's look at what that means for a level 5 Inv.

Investigator vs lvl 5 PFS scenario human with Alchemist levels.

NPC Will =+9
NPC AC = 22
PC Weapon prof= 7
PC Perception mod=9
Study Subject bonus= 1

At 10/10 DEX/WiS we get 19%-26% along the WIS row and up to a max of 30% down the DEX column. At 18/18 we get a max of 41%. So if you max DEX and WIS by lvl 5, you are getting bonus damage from Studied Strike about 40% of the time against this particular foe. If you don't boost either, you're only getting extra damage about 20% of the time.

4. To hit modifier. The next thing I looked at was the average To Hit Modifier for the Inv based on DEX/WIS. It should come as no surprise that DEX dominates the to modifier for the Investigator. The +1 from Study subject doesn't even add an expected +1, this is true against all levels of WIS.

As I stated, I spent more time on this write up than the model, so maybe it's got some critical flaw. I'd be interested in getting actual NPC stats from things people have fought to plug it in and see what the numbers say. I'll need

NPC Will
NPC AC
PC level
PC DEX/WIS (If STR is the main combat stat, it works out the same)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to use this thread to identify requests:

1. Please give the Investigator proficiency with a whip. I have found this to be an excellent weapon for the Investigator's support nature. It allows the investigator to remain out of melee and has a lot of non-lethal utility. Please, please consider this.

2. Keen Recollection. Reconsider that it should provide some sort of benefit if you are already trained in a Recall Knowledge skills. without Inspirations (let alone free Inspiration), I'm not seeing that the Investigator has any edge at the INT based skills.

3. Known Weakness. Why not let this stack with Monster Hunter and other abilities that provide a one round circumstance bonus against a specific creature?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh.

I played two investigators in PF1, so I'll be coming back.


This is a reposting of a previous questions, but now the title makes it clear.

Reposting some of the discussions...

N N 959 wrote:

Thanks for weighing in.

Alchemical Wonder wrote:

“If you use Hunt Prey against a creature when you already have a creature designated, the prior creature loses the designation and the new prey gains the designation.”

Since the creature loses the designation, it is no longer prey and you lose any benefits of that designation including the circumstance bonus from Monster Hunter.

Yes, I suggested that interpretation in my OP, but Monster Hunter doesn't explicitly require that the target remain Prey.

Monster Hunter wrote:
You and allies you tell gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against that prey.

This is ambiguous as to whether the bonus is lost when you designate a new Prey. As written, you get a bonus against that prey, because you just used Monster Hunter as a result of choosing a prey. It doesn't say "or until you designate a new prey." If that's what is intended, then it needs to be added.

Quote:
Doesn’t matter if you attack something else before you attack your prey, the first attack against that prey gets a circumstance bonus.

Yeah...that part isn't ambiguous.

Quote:
Mechanically, being sensed doesn’t seem to be necessary to share the benefits as far as I can tell, but I’d say your party would need to be told the flavor of your Recall Knowledge result to receive the benefits.

I agree it seems logical that there has to be communication of some sort, but it's oddly not required. Contrast that with Scout's Warning which explicitly attaches Audible/Visual labels to the action.

Scout's Warning wrote:
Depending on whether you use gestures or call out, this action gains either the visual or auditory trait, respectively.

Clearly Paizo is thinking about the consequences of communicating information that carries a mechanical benefit. Is Monster Hunter an oversight? Neither Monster Hunter or Warden impose a label.

So going back to the original question, a Ranger could track something, declare it Prey, crit success on Monster Hunter and impart the bonus to allies, but then go off in another direction. Technically this still conveys the bonus. The Ranger doesn't have to be seen or heard during the attack to get the bonus. That being the case, it doesn't logically follow that designating a new prey would cancel the previous bonus.

If we are going to attach an aspect of realism, we might say that the bonus conveyed is based on the Ranger identifying the weaknesses of the Prey. Those weakness remain known until they are exploited, at which point the creature is presumed to defend agains them. Sot it would make sense that if the Ranger doesn't have to be present for the bonus to be used, the bonus would persist even if a new prey is designated.

If Paizo is reading this, I would welcome a generous interpretation of this ability and the persistence of the bonus from MH and MW until they are used. This would really help improve an ability that has an exceedingly low chance of firing until level 10. Creature not only has to fall under Nature, but the Ranger has to crit succeed using a tertiary stat. Allowing the benefit to persist until used, does not seem to be unreasonable and is justifiable given the narrative.

If the benefit is lost upon setting a new target, then what happens if you circle back around?

Monster Hunter wrote:
]You can give bonuses from Monster Hunter only once per day against a particular creature.

This seems to suggest the Ranger can only use MH once against any creature. So it would help if that bonus, once conveyed, remains until used. That would alleviate the need for the Ranger to try and game the system about when to roll the RK check. It would make the benefit more useful to the party and alleviate the burden of the Ranger having to wait until everyone attacked his/her current prey before switching to a new one. Otherwise, you're further hamstringing this feat by requiring the Ranger sit around and wait until everyone gets their attack in.

If we consider Monster Warden, it makes less sense for the benefit to be lost upon a new designation.

Monster Warden wrote:
You understand how to defend yourself and others against your prey. When you grant bonuses from Monster Hunter, you and your allies also each gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next saving throw against that particular creature and to your AC against that creature’s next attack against you.

As written, this seems to persist. I would think it would be less complicated if both for these work the same way with regard to duration.

**crossing fingers and hoping Paizo makes these work the same and until used***


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's say a Ranger is tracking something and decides to designate it as Prey. Monster Hunter says the Ranger can immediately make a Recall Knowledge check. Ranger crit succeeds the Ranger "and its allies" get a +1 on the next attack. However, when they finally find the creature ...some hours later. Ranger wins init and designate something else as his/her Prey.

Do the allies still get the benefit if they attack the original creature?

Monster Hunter wrote:
You and allies you tell gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against that prey. You can give bonuses from Monster Hunter only once per day against a particular creature.

I would guess that the use of "that prey" suggests it still has to be the Ranger's current Prey. If so...

What happens if a Ranger get a Crit Success on RK and switch targets....then comes back to that target later in the fight? Does the benefit suddenly apply?

Does the Ranger have to be seen or heard by the party to convey the benefit? If not, then death of the Ranger does not end the benefit. Nor does the Ranger have to be present during the combat...i.e. designate Target and leave before the fight?


Hello!,

If you've got a PFS character level 5-6 and want to participate in the PFS PbP Special - Hao Jin Cataclysm, please add your name below. We only need three additional sign-ups to to get this game approved, but we need them quicky.

Start date is August 26th.

This gam will actually be run on the Mythweavers forums here:

https://www.myth-weavers.com/game.php?g=33627

The forums is free to sign up and offers some PbP improvements over the Paizo forum.

Feel free to post any questions, but we need to get at least three more applications soon:

Current:

Sorithar - Wizard 6


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey guys,

I feel like we've gotten a bit off track of the original topic of Jason's interview with the ranger and that talking about ranger theme and history might deserve it's own thread where those who are passionate can discuss it as the only topic. That said, since we don't have that yet (could someone interested in rangers start one up?) in terms of the question about survey results on spells and rangers, basically the results were the "Default no spells, with add an option to get spells like monk" option won by a landslide (and that'll guarantee we add that option at the soonest possible juncture we can fit it in), followed by the "Ranger never get spells" option with a sizeable chunk but nowhere near enough to challenge the leader, and in last place was the "Ranger has mandatory spells like in PF1" option.

First off, thank you for providing feedback. Second, Paizo removed spells from Rangers before you got the survey feedback, so that's where the "who, where, when" question was aimed, but I did ask what the Survey said, so thank you for providing that, though I suspect it comes as a rebuttal/justification for why PF2 went spell-less a priori.

My response to this is start with a response from another poster,

Doktor Weasel wrote:
I've always been a ranger fan, but was never really big on the spellcasting. Part of that was that Vancian, prepared spellcasting is terrible. Part was the spell selection and bad save DCs of any offensive spell. But probably the biggest issue was the action economy. In combat you could either cast a spell, or attack. And with the ranger spell list, attacking was pretty much always the best option. Moving to three actions opens up the possibility of rangers being able to use spells more effectively, especially if they're one action powers. So spellcasting rangers might actually be more popular in the new system.

I recall the Survey asking these questions, but I don't remember the Survey asking why people wanted a spell-less Ranger. The point I'm making is that the implementation of spells for the Ranger in PF1, imo, was terrible, just as the Doktor Weasel has said. So Paizo is asking if people want a spell-less Ranger without giving the players alternative spell casting options. It's like the school cafeteria serving moldy cake for dessert and then insisting kids don't like cake because nobody eats it. It's not surprising people would rather not have to take cake than be forced to contend with something that tasted horrible and hard to swallow.

Why not ask if people want an improved spell system or if players will use spells if the system were dramatically improved? The point is that I think it's really easy to misinterpret what people are unhappy with and miss an opportunity to fix something that would dramatically improve the play experience.

While I can see dumping spells as something to playtest, why wasn't improved spell access also tested. I posted, several times, a suggestion for improving spells for Ranger, but no one at Paizo seemed to have any interest in discussing any spell options for the Playtest.

That having been said, I can recognize the advantage in reducing the number of spell lists down to Occult, Arcane, Divine, and Primal. While I loved individual spell lists and the flexibility that gave the classes, there is is an argument for simplifying. I can also agree that it simply giving the Ranger access to the Primal list is not straight forward. I don't think all those spells are appropriate for the class. But something is needed. By making it default, you give the class more distinction from the other skill based martials and it will affect how the class is treated in future updates.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I did write up on the PFS scenarios in the Pathfinder Society Feedback thread.

PFS Feedback on lvl 1 and 5 scenarios

I've posted the Ranger specific comments in the spoiler tags. A some point, I hope to go into more details on the specific problems if I can muster the motivation.

Spoiler:
General comments - played both scenarios with the same GM.

RSR - Party and main schtick

Half-Elf Sorc - Telekinetic Projective
Human Paladin - Sword and Board (Hospice Knight, Deity)
Human Ranger - Companion and Shortbow - my character (Bear and Monster Hunter)
Goblin Fighter - Power attack w/Greatsword

Classes -

Fighter - 118
Paladin - 69
Ranger - 23
Scorc - 29

The Ranger was a joke. This class is functionally a mess. Hunt Target was of zero benefit throughout the entire scenario despite applying it before combat began : 1) Never hit with a second attack that would have missed but for Hunt Target. Nor did I crit as a result. +1 just does not have that much of an impact; 2) it's not possible to get 2 attacks in when controlling an NPC and having to move; 3) If HT is screened or has cover, you're better off attacking something right in front of you; 4) HT gets killed, you have to burn another action to identify another target; 5) A third attack is pointless. So despite getting -8 on the third attack, the benefit is essentially worthless because there's little incentive to use it at low level.

The Animal Companion sits idle for about 1/3 of the combat. In rounds where the Ranger wants to choose another HT and then move and then fire, the AC cannot be given commands. If the Ranger wants to use Monster Hunter, that's another action. There is a potential for the AC to add damage using Work Together. This is far superior to having the creature attack.

Monster Hunter is entirely pointless at this level: 1) You need to first have a Hunt Target (action); 2) You have to Critically succeed on a Recall K check (Another action); 3) It's +1 for one attack, not one around; 4) The Ranger is only trained in Nature. So that means it's impossible for the Hunter to critically succeed on any non-Nature monster >= Ranger's level unless he rolls a nat 20. I tried to use this ability, it never worked. It literally gave zero benefit.

Ranged combat - Being stuck with a shortbow means pitiful damage. The Ranger was out damaged by the Sorc using TK Projective. What's more, the Sorc could use different ammunition and get different damage types. The Ranger can get slashing with a Bear.

In combat, my Ranger did 16 of his 23 points (total) in one crit against a zombie with the bear threatening.

At no point was Tracking or any Survival skills beneficial. Though Nature did help. The scenario apparently calls for two Survival checks, but in our case, whatever we did made them unnecessary. The point here was that none of the Ranger's background or theme played a factor.

Arclord's Envry
Party -

Human Ranger - Bear companion, Monster Hunter, Monster Warden, Favored Aim, Bonded Companion, Expert Bow
Human Paladin - All three 1st level class feats, Shielded Ally, Divine Grace,
Goblin Wizard - Thief dedication
Cleric of Nethys
Bard -

Classes
Damage for this one was harder to track due to more resistances/weakness. But over three encounters, the damage came out to as follows:

Ranger - 82
Paladin - 233
Wizard - 108*
Bard - 0
Cleric - 100*?

The Ranger was more effective than 1st level on account of a +1 bow and scoring a couple of crits/Nat 20's. This brought in the Deadly property and triggered the Crit Spec which twice forced an NPC to burn a round. However, given the specifics, this had minimal effect on the combat. Nevertheless, the Ranger came in dead last for damage (ignoring the bard who never actually attacked anything).

As with level 1, HT continues to be mostly worthless, and this is with my frequently using HT before Initiative is rolled. I might have gotten benefit from the second Range modifier on one shot. Despite getting two attacks (at the expense of the Companion doing nothing) not once did the +1 on the second attack make any difference. When I did command the animal, it never got any benefit from Hunt Target, so Companion's Bond did nothing. I used Favored Aim once, and quickly realized that the +1 you avoid from Screened or Cover, is not worth giving up an extra attack, or, more importantly, the ability to Command Animal.

Monster Hunter and Monster Warden never got used. There's no point in burning an action to try and identify a non-Nature NPC, when you need a natural 20 to critically succeed. In fact, almost no one used Recall Knowledge after initiative on account of it requiring an action.

Ultimately the Ranger is totally plagued by lack of actions, lack of agency, and lack of effectiveness. A composite shortbow with +1 on damage is not an effective weapon for a level 5 Ranger.


General comments - played both scenarios with the same GM.

RSR - Party and main schtick

Half-Elf Sorc - Telekinetic Projective
Human Paladin - Sword and Board (Hospice Knight, Deity)
Human Ranger - Companion and Shortbow - my character (Bear and Monster Hunter)
Goblin Fighter - Power attack w/Greatsword

General Comments
Scenario - This scenario had the feel of a typical PFS scenario. I liked the short quest format, even though it functionally is not much different from a normal scenario. The difficulty of this scenario was fairly low. At no point was the party in any real danger. Nobody went to 0 hit points, though the Paladin did use LoH a couple of times, probably incorrectly given he didn't put away his weapon (GM treated as if he has Warded Touch).

Combat - The combats were generally easy. However, players seem to be a slight disadvantage with the action economy because NPCs seem to be less concerned with living and GM played them fairly aggressive. Lack of AoO's means its harder for meleers to control the battlefield. NPCs can simply move past whomever and attack anyone. This cuts both ways, and means NPC casters are more exposed.

Very nice for one of the encounters to allow a non-diplomacy skill check to eliminate a combatant. More of that please.

Combat's did not last any longer than P1. Most things died in one or two rounds. In addition, a third attack is pointless of PCs who lack the accuracy boost to hit.

[u]Social Skills[/u] - This is always the weak part of PFS because the players are often railroaded into simply rolling predetermined skill checks, and most of these are Diplomacy. Nevertheless, it was good that options existed and was pleased that the Ranger was able to use Nature to do something.

Classes - The Fighter, using Power Attack totally dominated combat (despite a 16 STR). I tracked damage and over four encounters it looked like this:

Fighter - 118
Paladin - 69
Ranger - 23
Scorc - 29

The Paladin was fairly effective. Used his shield to block damage, but did not hit with any Retributive Strike. In addition, this ability seemingly had no impact on the GMs tactical decisions regarding the NPCs. However, the need to move and raise shield reduce the Paladin's attack rate.

The Ranger was a joke. This class is functionally a mess. Hunt Target was of zero benefit throughout the entire scenario despite applying it before combat began : 1) Never hit with a second attack that would have missed but for Hunt Target. Nor did I crit as a result. +1 just does not have that much of an impact; 2) it's not possible to get 2 attacks in when controlling an NPC and having to move; 3) If HT is screened or has cover, you're better off attacking something right in front of you; 4) HT gets killed, you have to burn another action to identify another target; 5) A third attack is pointless. So despite getting -8 on the third attack, the benefit is essentially worthless because there's little incentive to use it at low level.

The Animal Companion sits idle for about 1/3 of the combat. In rounds where the Ranger wants to choose another HT and then move and then fire, the AC cannot be given commands. If the Ranger wants to use Monster Hunter, that's another action. There is a potential for the AC to add damage using Work Together. This is far superior to having the creature attack.

Monster Hunter is entirely pointless at this level: 1) You need to first have a Hunt Target (action); 2) You have to Critically succeed on a Recall K check (Another action); 3) It's +1 for one attack, not one around; 4) The Ranger is only trained in Nature. So that means it's impossible for the Hunter to critically succeed on any non-Nature monster >= Ranger's level unless he rolls a nat 20. I tried to use this ability, it never worked. It literally gave zero benefit.

Ranged combat - Being stuck with a shortbow means pitiful damage. The Ranger was out damaged by the Sorc using TK Projective. What's more, the Sorc could use different ammunition and get different damage types. The Ranger can get slashing with a Bear.

In combat, my Ranger did 16 of his 23 points (total) in one crit against a zombie with the bear threatening.

At no point was Tracking or any Survival skills beneficial. Though Nature did help. The scenario apparently calls for two Survival checks, but in our case, whatever we did made them unnecessary. The point here was that none of the Ranger's background or theme played a factor.

The Sorc was effective. Telekinetic Project did a fair amount of damage and the Sorc had enough skills and modifiers for Diplomacy that if he did not outright dominate the Social skill checks, he was easily the most effective.

Arclord's Envry

General Comments - Player creating for 5th level characters took myself and the Paladin about four hours and this with us extending the 1st level characters.

Party -

Human Ranger - Bear companion, Monster Hunter, Monster Warden, Favored Aim, Bonded Companion, Expert Bow
Human Paladin - All three 1st level class feats, Shielded Ally, Divine Grace,
Goblin Wizard - Thief dedication
Cleric of Nethys
Bard -

General
This adventure wasn't nearly as satisfying as the first. The non-combat felt particularly railroaded. IMO, the story was too complicated for a game store environment where its hard to hear the GM (and I sat right next to him) and there is lot of banter back and forth. The combats felt more deadly than 1st level, but no one was reduced to zero hit points.

Combat
The combats were move involved and where enjoyable. There were a lot more crits in this game than in the 1st level scenario. The Flesh Golum crit several times, nearly every time it hit. Still no one got the Dying condition as most of the damage was taken by the Cleric and the Paladin.

Social/Skills
As is typical with PFS, there isn' a lot of decision making in the non-combat part of the game. This aspect boils down to obligatory skill checks, with everyone at the table rolling and someone getting a 18+ which prompts a data dump on the players.

Classes -
Damage for this one was harder to track due to more resistances/weakness. But over three encounters, the damage came out to as follows:

Ranger - 82
Paladin - 233
Wizard - 108*
Bard - 0
Cleric - 100*?

The Goblin Wizard was easily the MVP, imo. As is typical in P1, the wizard had an answer for every encounter, and never seem to run out of spells (and this was a Wizard with with Rogue multi-class).

In the first encounter, the Wizard used fire and summons. In the second, the GM allowed the Wizard to use TK Projective to fling water at the elementals.

During the one skill encounter, the Wizard and Bard were able to buff themselves and complete it, without any help from the Athletic trained Ranger and Paladin.

In the final encounter, the Wizard was able to use Grease to totally incapacitate several NPCs and summon an illusion to harry another. If Wizards were nerfed, it didn't show up in this adventure.

The Paladin dominated melee combat. Retributive Strike scored several hits, about 30-40 of the total 233, and that's with the player forgetting to use it half the time. A +1 weapon makes a big difference. The Paladin did not use LoH at all, nor did he use True Strike from his deity.

The Ranger was more effective than 1st level on account of a +1 bow and scoring a couple of crits/Nat 20's. This brought in the Deadly property and triggered the Crit Spec which twice forced an NPC to burn a round. However, given the specifics, this had minimal effect on the combat. Nevertheless, the Ranger came in dead last for damage (ignoring the bard who never actually attacked anything).

As with level 1, HT continues to be mostly worthless, and this is with my frequently using HT before Initiative is rolled. I might have gotten benefit from the second Range modifier on one shot. Despite getting two attacks (at the expense of the Companion doing nothing) not once did the +1 on the second attack make any difference. When I did command the animal, it never got any benefit from Hunt Target, so Companion's Bond did nothing. I used Favored Aim once, and quickly realized that the +1 you avoid from Screened or Cover, is not worth giving up an extra attack, or, more importantly, the ability to Command Animal.

Monster Hunter and Monster Warden never got used. There's no point in burning an action to try and identify a non-Nature NPC, when you need a natural 20 to critically succeed. In fact, almost no one used Recall Knowledge after initiative on account of it requiring an action.

Ultimately the Ranger is totally plagued by lack of actions, lack of agency, and lack of effectiveness. A composite shortbow with +1 on damage is not an effective weapon for a level 5 Ranger.

Finally, none of the Ranger's Background (Hunter) or Skill Feats (Experienced Tracker) had any impact. Tracking, Cover Tracks, an anything involving wildlife was of zero value.

The Bard did a lot of aiding and bard song. This did add damage to attacks and at one point the Bard gave the Paladin a +5 to hit on one attack. The Bard's biggest contribution was Stupefying the BBEG. This had a huge benefit and essentially was a primary motivation in the GM calling the fight early.

The Cleric was a force and a meat shield. He took a ton of damage in all the encounters and survived. Using Vampiric touch and Harm, he laid waste to many NPCs. In the final encounter, he dispelled a summon creature right at the onset. The player had to leave early so did not finish the final encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me start off by saying that after using Hunt Target (HT) in a PFS playtest, I found it failed to provide any substantive benefit. If Paizo is emotionally wedded to this concept, I would recommend the following changes:

1) HT can be also triggered when finding tracks of a creature;

2) Any application of HT inside or outside of combat, immediately allows a free Recall Knowledge check if you have Monster Hunter;

3) HT conveys the bonus on all creatures of the same Type (but you still need to attack the same target to get benefit);

4) Creatures are not bolstered against HT and once identified, HT applies to that creature if you make all your attacks against it that round, even if you use HT on a different creature .

5) Any round that a Ranger successful attacks against a designated Target, that creature gets a -1 attack vs the Ranger and its companion for one round.

6) Ranger gets +2 Stealth vs Target until the creature is attacked.

7) The description fo HT is changed to describe it as the Ranger's ability to out maneuver its prey when attacking.

8) Any Strike Actions that require two actions, bet a +2 accuracy boost on the first attack roll.

I'd still like to see another option instead of HT, but these changes might make HT feel actually worth using.


Over the weekend, I played a Human Ranger in the Rose Street Revenge. I ran into this problem several times:

When using an Animal Companion and Recall Knowledge to trigger Monster Hunter, it's impossible to get a benefit from Hunt Target as I was limited to one attack. It's not clear to me whether Recall K. can be used every round until you Critically Succeed and the Target is Bolstered.

The lack of Actions to effectively use the Class feats seems to continue throughout the Ranger lower levels. Favored Aim requires two actions and gives you one attack. So Hunt Target does nothing if you're having to Command Animal every round. Same with Double Slice.

At 4th level, if you Double Slice and Twin Parry, you have no actions left to Command Animal. Even if the 4th level AC feat granted a free action (which it does not), you'd still have to wait until 5th level and burn a General or Ancestry feat to use both TWF feats along with your animal companion. That also leaves no opportunity to use Recall Knowledge to benefit from Monster Hunter.

The bottom line is that the Ranger's Class abilities are so Action taxing that using abilities means reduced damage as you're giving up attacks, something Hunt Target requires you to make if you're going to get any benefit. Remember, every time a Ranger has to switch Targets, it has to spend an Action to apply Hunt Target.


I was looking in the rules and I don't see anything that says you can only roll it once, plus, it takes an Action. So does that mean a PC could roll three times in a round?


I've got to believe that this has already been suggested, so apologies if I am repeating someone else's idea. One of the problems with Proficiency ranks of T E M L is that they do not convey a real sense of improvement. How about:

Each level of Proficiency adds a die roll and you take the best result.

So Trained gives you 2d20, Expert 3d20, etc. You take the best roll. Or, start the extra die on Expert instead of trained, so Legendary you get the best result from 4d20. Keep the -2, 0, 1, 2, 3.

This would preserve the mechanic whereby someone Untrained might still be able to succeed at almost any task, but it would dramatically improve the chance of someone with Legendary Proficiency at simple tasks, especially if Paizo is not going to have T10 for free.

I'd also argue that letting players roll more dice on skill checks will make skills more enjoyable in and of themselves.

Yes, I am aware that D&D 5e does something like this called Advantage, only I'm suggesting this for Skills only, not combat. I haven't played 5e, only heard about it.


After discussion on these forums regarding the usefulness of covering a party's tracks in Pathfinder, I would like to recommend a replacement for the Trackless Step feat for Rangers and solicit other suggestions as well. My suggestion:

1) Replace Trackless Step with "Pursue."

2) Award Pursue and 1st level to the Ranger (as Paizo has taken Wild Empathy and given it to Druids at 1st level).

3) The Pursue Feat: The Ranger gets +1 to skill checks when tracking creatures. On a success, the Ranger can make a Recall Knowledge check at -1 versus the creature tracked. If successful, the Ranger can apply Hunt Target to that creature.

4) Update the Track description in the skill section to indicate that creatures will generally leave tracks at entrances and exits. Allow Track to determine specific aspects of the party being tracked, e.g. how many, how long it has been, if someone is wounded, etc.

It's not that I don't like Trackless Step thematically, it's essentially never used in the context of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is the relevant part of the Recall Knowledge skill:

p. 145 wrote:

Success You recall the knowledge accurately.

Critical Failure You recall incorrect information.

In P1, if you failed the Knowledge check, you got nothing. Then the player had to use whatever information could be gleaned from the actual encounter. With P2 mandating "incorrect information" you're arguably putting the GM in a position force the player to act on bad information. This problem is exasperated by the fact that the GM is not given guidance on the nature of the incorrect information. You're going to have situations where the GM is going to tell the player that the PC knows X and when the PC could obviously see that Not X is true.

This creates a situation where the player can be accused of metagaming because he/she disregards the RK info for whatever reason.

I ran into a similar problem in PFS with Spellcraft. Failed a Spellcraft check and the GM tried to insist I couldn't know what the spell was when it would have been obvious from other in-game clues. Had to get a Venture Captain to insist that a PC can draw whatever inferences that they want.

Personally, I think Paizo need to eliminate the "incorrect information" outcome. While I know GMs may feel this was long overdue, it's going to lead to issues where players are going to disregard the information that they know is false and then be accused of meta-gaming. I don't see how this is a net positive for the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
p. 159 wrote:

You cover your tracks, moving at half your Speed. You don’t need to roll a Survival check to cover your tracks, but anyone tracking you must exceed your Survival

DC if it is higher than the normal DC to track.

I don't get this skill. Has anyone had a situation in P1 where something was trying to track them and the PCs had to try and cover their tracks via Ranger or Druid?

Alliteratively, what creature in the Bestiary is going to try and track the PCs in any nominal situation?

I'm at a loss here.


43 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading through some of the Paladin threads, I can only shake my head and recognize the long uphill battle Paizo faces. I have to believe the it's only going to get harder. In fact, when I think of all the details that have to be addressed and all the potential gotcha's and oversights, I feel like I need to go lay down and pull the covers over my head.

I imagine it doesn't help to know that you can't make the perfect game. Nor can you make everyone happy. You can't even make everyone on the forums happy, despite them telling you how to do it. But, as the cliche goes, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it. So I hope everyone at Paizo embraces the challenge. The greater the obstacle, the more insurmountable it seems, the more character and commitment you will have displayed in overcoming it.

Believe in yourselves. Believe you have the skill, talent, conviction and passion to see this through. Believe in your judgment of when to listen to others and when to follow your intuition. And while I don't know if I'll prefer 2e over 1e, make the game that you want to play, first and foremost, and trust that others will too. This is truly art, and not science.

To all at Paizo involved in 2e, including the moderators, keep your chin up.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously we don't know how Rangers will work in 2e, but I strongly recommend that Rangers be allowed to spontaneously cast their spells if their spell list is similar to 1e. Why?

In 1e, Rangers can prepare very few spells. This compels players to choose spells that have a high likelihood of being used e.g. gravity bow, lead blades, resist energy. But the Ranger spell list is filled with tons of interesting and setting specific spells, that are never used because the Ranger can't know in advance that something like cloak of shade will be needed. One time I was going to prep campfire for a PFS scenario and the GM said, don't bother. I've a played an Archery Ranger through 10 levels in PFS. I've probably cast the same three spells the entire time. I've got a Sword and Board Ranger through 5, and yup, the same three spells (LB's for GB). Sure, I can buy wands (at least in PFS) to do the 1st level spells, but that doesn't help because many Ranger spells are often utility based and it's a crapshoot that something like clear grove is going to be needed. I'll bet the same is true for the vast majority of players. In fact, just now, I did a survey of all the Rangers everywhere throughout time, and to-date, no one has cast sculpted cape, ever. Not even when the spell was playtested.

Allowing a Rangers to cast any spell on their list, will accomplish several goals:

1) It will dramatically improve the character's sense of being prepared and able to handle whatever the situation throws at him or her;

2) Concurrently, it will foster more creative problem solving. I would love to be able to use residual tracking to identify a killer, but I would never think to prepare that ahead of time when a Ranger only gets one 1st level spell until 9th level, maybe two if you spend the ability points or cash to raise Wisdom

Yes, I imagine Rangers might get spell points or something, but the change that's needed is access to the entire spell list, not necessarily more spells.

3) Greater chance to burn off combat spells. Opening up access to the entire spell list will dramatically increase the chances the Ranger will burn a spell to do something outside of combat. This means Ranger's will have more meaningful decisions in when/which spells they cast. As things stand in 1e, I don't even bother reviewing Ranger spells. I am not going to prepare anything but the combat spells unless the GM bold face tells me I should have X spell ready, and what are the chances of that?

4) Ranger's need some spell support. Hunter's get more spells, at level 1, and have access to both Druid and Ranger lists up to level 6. A Ranger is going to be lucky if he can even get 4th level spells. By the time a Ranger is eligible for one 1st level bonus spell, the Hunter has twelve spells, including six level 1 spells.

Spell casting is a really neat part of what a Ranger can do, but the 1e system has constrained them to mere fraction of the spell list outside of wands and scrolls. Wands and scrolls just aren't very Rangerish, imo.

Yes, I'm expecting Ranger's will cast more spells in 2e, but I'd rather they get access to their entire spell list (just kidding, I want more spells too!) It would be an order of magnitude improvement, imo, for a Rangers to be able to actually use more than a fraction of spells on their entire list. Full access would help differentiate their casting from Druids and Hunters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After the Investigator class was introduced, I played a couple and explored poison use. My determination is that it's completely broken from the PC side of the equation. Why?

1) Asymmetrical impact on PCs vs NPCs. Like several mechanics in PF, the effectiveness of poisons when used against PC's is not commensurate with the benefit of poisons used on NPCs. A lot of this has to do with how most natural poisons work in nature against humans, i.e. the effect is not usually instantaneous death, but some debilitating outcome which may or may not lead to death. So it's natural for PF to make poisons work in a similar fashion. But it's also obvious that this mechanic, while arguably plausible and useful against PCs, it is not fun and essentially eliminates poisons from PC use.

2) The cost is ridiculously prohibitive, even if you craft them. This is fairly obvious if you look at costs and the perishable nature of poison use in combat.

3) Serviceable poison use is feat intensive. If we set aside cost, anyone who seriously wants to use poisons, has to spend a significant amount of feats to try and extend the duration, uses, DC's, or effectiveness of poison.

4) Poison DCs do not scale with level and work against Fortitude, usually the best Save for NPC/Monsters. Again, this is obvious.

5) No benefit to using poisons vs straight damage Against an NPC, poison use is largely pointless. Time it takes to kill the vast majority of NPCs/Monsters with straight up damage is too short. In addition, there are no ancillary benefits to using poison when the objective is to simply kill the NPCs. While this is a fundamental problem with this genre of RPGs (killing a combatant is the most efficient option), it contributes to the pointlessness of poisons.

6) Many commonly used NPCs are immune Constructs, Oozes, Plants, Undead. Not to a mention a host of popular subtypes, Daemons, Demons, Devils, Elemental, and probably a dozen other Subtypes.

Again, a lot of this was made disappointingly clear to me when I tried to play an Investigator in PFS scenarios. In or out of PFS, I've never had another player identify poison use as means to an end. Yes, yes...I'm sure there are tons of anecdotes of people using poisons and how wonderful that was. But I'll wager Bitcoins to donuts that if we compare the number of times someone successfully used poisons (in the context of a class ability) compare to say Sneak Attack, or Bard's Song, or a spell spontaneous conversion, or even a Samurai's challenge ability, it's like 1 divided by a Google Plex.

Poisons in 1e are completely broken as a mechanic for a class ability. Yes, it adds flavor...like painting the underside of a garbage truck adds flavor to trash collection. Don't get me wrong. I welcome a legitimate poison use ability.


Would welcome any blog links on either Rangers or treatment of Animal Companions.

Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So a typical PFS scenario says something like this:

the PCs can attempt a Knowledge (religion), Spellcraft, or Heal check...

Does this mean the players can only choose one skill to make the attempt at or they can try all three skills? This is situation where failure does not preclude another PC from trying nor does anything prevent the PC from attempting another check if it were allowed.

If the answer is that you only choose one, why? If knowledge can be obtained from several different sources, why is the PC not allowed to overcome the obstacle from any and all skills that would provide insight?

For example, I may not know/remember the history of a region, but I might know/remember the geography. If K. Geography and K. History are both options, why would a PC not be able to tap both?


Currently have open slots for a PbP The Cosmic Captive *special* which starts June 9th. This is a multi-table game that can only be run in multi-table format.

This game will be played on the Mythweavers.com website.

The Cosmic Captive muster

If you haven't played on Mythweavers, it's a great website for PbP. In addition, there is a community of PFS players and musters routinely being offered. So now is a great chance to familiarize yourself with the site while playing in a PFS special scenario.

*specials* are scenarios that are typically introduced at a PFS Con and then only run with multiple tables at the same time. That means that you won't be able to play this scenario outside of these events. It also means the success of the other tables affects the outcome for all particpants. Specials also typically offer chronicle boons that provide a long term or permanent benefit to the character.

The Cosmic Captive will be run on a sex week time schedule. That means the scenario will end after six weeks so you won't be stuck in a slow moving scenario. It also means you'll need to post daily.


PRD wrote:
Gather Crowd (Ex): At 5th level, the celebrity is skilled at drawing an audience to his performances. If he is in a settlement or populated area, he can shout, sing, or otherwise make himself noticed in order to attract an audience to his impromptu stage. The size of the crowd depends on the local population, but typically is a number of people equal to 1/2 the bard’s class level × the result of the bard’s Perform check. The crowd gathers over the next 1d10 rounds. If the bard fails to engage the crowd (such as by performing, kissing babies, trying to use fascinate, and so on), it disperses over the next 1d10 rounds. This ability replaces lore master.

Okay...so the bard gathers a crowd...and then what? I admit to not understanding how this is mechanically useful to the archetype. From a roleplaying angle, it's great. But I am not seeing anything that tells you how to leverage the crowd.


Inner Sea Gods wrote:


DEADEYE’S ARROW (eRAStiL)
School evocation [electricity]; Level cleric 2, inquisitor 1, druid 1, magus 1, paladin 1, ranger 1
casting time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (one arrow)
Range Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) or see text
effect arrow of electricity
Duration instantaneous or 1 round (see text)
Saving throw none; Spell Resistance yes

You create an arrow made of crackling electricity, which you may use for one of two effects.
Attack: You may throw the arrow up to Medium range or re it from a bow up to the bow’s maximum range. Either use is a ranged touch attack. The arrow deals 1d6 points of electricity damage + 1 point per level (maximum +5).

Beacon: You throw or re the arrow straight up. When it reaches maximum range or a solid surface (such as the roof of a cave) it explodes in a peal of thunder and forms a forked bolt of electricity resembling Erastil’s holy symbol, which lingers for 1 round. The thunder and lightning are as loud and bright as natural thunder and lightning, but they do not harm any nearby creatures.

It would appear that creating the electrical arrows is an instantaneous effect that has no duration and the "1 round" duration only applies to using the arrow as a beacon. Is this correct?


Is there any special material that would benefit a whip's construction? I'm only seeing Griffon Mane as even possible, but that is not that useful of a material for a whip.


I could use some advice. I haven't played my Barb since the option to unchain him was offered. I haven't played him because I honestly not sure what to do with him.

He's a prototypical build. 5th level, no dump stats and two-hand wielder, power attack. He's got Intimidating Glare and Raging Vitality.

While I do like the unchained version means you're less likely to die when you go unconscious while raging, I can't stand the fact that you lose your skill bonuses from improved stats. Of course I could make use of a rebuild.

I'd be curious to hear what people think of the options. Has anyone converted and wished they hadn't?


18 people marked this as a favorite.

I went through and excerpted all the questions that were answered by John Compton or Michael Brock. Please correct/advise me if my edits have resulted in a misleading response.

Faction Journal Card FAQ

I assume the goals can only be completed going forward? I can't just check off things I have completed before the cards were released. Just want to make sure, because I know this question will come up.

The goals cannot be completed retroactively.

**
I would assume these can't be applied retroactively... that all games prior to yesterday 'wouldn't count' toward these cards.

No, they can't be applied retroactively.

**
Do scenarios played before the cards came out count towards that goal?

No, the cards are not retroactive to any play before they were released

**
Acquire a merchant’s license in a city other than Absalom with a population of 5,000 or more. Doing so requires spending 25 gp per character level and succeeding on an Appraise or Profession (merchant) check with a DC equal to 15 plus your character level. If you exceed the DC of the check by 10 or more, you instead receive the license for free. Whenever you are in that city, you may purchase all mundane items at a 10% discount.

Can this be any Appraise or Profession (merchant) check in a city? If not, does it have to be in the presence of or directed at a specific type of NPC?

It is a check attempted solely for the purpose of fulfilling this objective, and the PC can try it once per adventure. It does not have to be performed in the presence of any particular NPC, but so long as it's not especially disruptive to the game, a GM is welcome to flesh out the encounter a bit.

**
Liberty's Edge card: Liberate one or more slaves, captives, or hostages during an adventure.
Could this include freeing prisoners the PCs take or preventing/dissuading a PC from taking a prisoner, such as the surrendered enemy combatant for the Silver Crusade? I'm going to assume no, but I imagine it could come up.

You are correct in assuming not. This applies to slave and other captives the PCs find, not ones the PCs make themselves. When in doubt, assume that these goals work off of opportunities that are already in the adventure, not ones the PCs sow themselves in order to farm objectives.
"Hey Major Maldris, I dominated a small village and forced them to perform morally debasing acts, but I generously freed them all a week later. Am I a hero, or what?!?"

**
“PARAGON (7+ goals): When you or an ally purchases the spellcasting service raise dead, resurrection, or true resurrection, reduce the Prestige Point cost by 25%.”
Does this stack if there are multiple Silver Crusaders with this boon at a table?

No, apply only one reduction. A quartet of high-ranking Silver Crusaders cannot resurrect a whole village for free.

**
Grand Lodge card wrote:
EXPEDITION COORDINATOR (7+ goals): You can forego your Day Job check to organize an expedition to a site you recently visited and discover things you missed before. You can check one of the boxes to retroactively succeed at the scenario’s secondary success condition that you would have otherwise failed. If you do so, all other PCs at the table also succeed at the secondary success condition.
What if the secondary condition is not to retrieve an object, to retrieve an object that was destroyed, involves a creature or character who was killed during the scenario, or is in a location the PCs couldn't feasibly re-enter?

Ultimately, the nature of the secondary success condition is not critical; the PC leads an expedition that finds something equally valuable and worthy of a Prestige Point.

**
BTW does every character gain her own card?

Every character can receive his or her own card.

**
Just to be clear, these can be used right now?

Yes

**
Question on Liberty's Edge Liberator Reward, is that supposed to be 6+ goals completed or was it meant to be 7 like the other cards?

It is meant to be 6+ goals because the Liberty's Edge Faction Journal Card is an exception to the rule that all cards have seven non-GM-related goals. The card does, however, have the same number of checkbox requirements (not including a few special "you can check this box in addition to another box" ones).

**
I have a question when it says "Once per adventure that grants a Chronicle sheet and at least 1 XP" does this mean we do not get a check if we are going slow track? probably reading into it but thanks in advance.

You can still work on your card. That language is intended to prevent someone from earning check box credit when playing a single quest (or checking one box for every part of The Silverhex Chronicles)

**
Can you elaborate on the following:
Let's say I have just GMed Overflow Archive (well I did on Saturday, made a number of mistakes I am not going to repeat) and I want to apply that chronicle to an as yet unused and unplayed character (that is going to be a Dark Archive member), do I have to check the faction card of that character, or can I choose the faction card of another Dark Archive Character.
Also, would it be possible to add a little space to (the next version of) the card, so players we can note the PFS number of the corresponding character?

When you apply GM credit to a character, you can check one of the final objective's five check boxes for that character.
For example, let's say my –1 and –2 characters are both members of the Dark Archive. If I assign GM credit to XXXX–1, I can check one of the five GM boxes on the Faction Journal Card for XXXX–1, not XXXX–2.

**
Can you elaborate a bit on the function of the Abolitionist ability under Liberty's Edge? Does it effectively summon the stated NPCs for an extended duration, which is roughly the duration of the part of the scenario you are currently involved with? (since I'm not sure what "encounter" means in PFS terms when it comes to duration).
When "rallied" how much control is the PC who called them assumed to have? ... do they function like a summoned creature, like an allied NPC, do you have to make cha-checks, etc?

It effectively summons those NPCs for the duration of an encounter, which could be a combat encounter or a short non-combat challenge.
These are under the player's control like a summoned creature would be, but they're still living, breathing, mortal creatures with hopes, dreams, and a whole lot of abolitionist fervor. Having them help during an encounter against a tough foe is something they're willing to do; however sending them down a trapped hallway to "look for traps," sacrificing them to some villain, or other egregious mistreatment of these volunteers is not on their agenda, and under those circumstances I would not object to a GM ruling that the liberated slaves say "no." Exceptional or repeat violations could easily be considered an evil act.

**
Can you convert one of your characters? Or does it have to be a character controlled by another player?

The character has to be someone else participating in that game session, so converting one of your own PCs is not possible.

**
Spend at least 100 gp per character level on spell casting services for spells with the healing descriptor for another PC. You may instead purchase and expend material components or a single-use magic item that costs the same amount for that PC.

If I buy, for example, Potion of Cure Serious Wounds (750 gp) and give it to someone else, does it count for this goal?

It sure does!

**
Logistically, how are we to handle these cards in PbP?

I recommend a player provide an out-of-character notice to the GM that he is attempting to complete one of the Faction Journal Card's goals during play (and provide the relevant goal's text). At the end of the session, the GM can confirm whether or not the PC fulfilled the conditions and instruct the player to check the relevant check box.
Since these do not require direct GM signatures, this process should not require constant scanning and sending of files.

**
In Dark Archive it says, "Recruit a named NPC scholar, knowledgeable spell caster, or similar figure to the Dark Archive. Recruitment requires a Diplomacy or Knowledge (arcana) check with a DC equal to 15 plus your character level."

Should that be "... with a DC equal to 15 plus the NPC's character level."?
If not, why would it be harder for me to recruit someone as I advance in level?

The most important reason is that it's easy to figure out what your character's level is, but it's not always clear what level an NPC is. After all, NPCs not intended as combat threats rarely have their level printed in the scenario (or printed anywhere, for that matter), so basing this on the NPC's level would result in massive discrepancies in the skill check's DC on a table-by-table basis.

**
Quick question: So when using the abolitionist boon for Liberties Edge, is it safe to assume that for one encounter just means that single fight rather than for the rest of the scenario correct? If so what happens if you proc multiple encounters at the same time and then call forth your freed rabble? Do they stay till the entire fight ends or do the poof once one of the original groups is handled?

In most cases that I can imagine, they would stick around until the ongoing combat—multiple encounters and all—came to an end. In the grand scheme of things, having a lower-level commoner stick around for a few extra rounds is unlikely to change anything.
If the PCs are purposely triggering multiple combats by opening doors and moving from room to room in one extended melee, I would be far less inclined to have the NPCs follow. I imagine they might take a few rounds to put up some flashy anti-tyranny posters, salute the Liberty's Edge PC, and depart.
As is the case with determining whether a PC completed a faction goal, it's important that a GM exercise a bit of leniency when determining this duration.

**
Are these cards only good for Season 6 or can we expect these to carry over for Season 7?

Be sure to read the Additional Cards section on the file's first page.

**
I'm not sure what prevents 'cheating' or error here.
A player can't have more boxes checked than they have XP/Scenarios/Chronicles... but otherwise the checks don't reference where they came from in any way. Is the GM really involved in any way with keeping track of these things?

if someone wants to cheat, they will cheat. It's life and it happens. If we put lines for a GM to initial, the person could just initial it himself and no one would be the wiser. The next GM won't know if it is an actual GM's initials or not. We are trying to go with the belief that the majority of people will just play nice and use these in the spirit they have been presented - another way to try to immerse the character into the world through accomplishing goals for their faction.

**
Per mentioning about the Silverhex Chronicles, can you tick off a box once you play enough of them to get 1XP on the chronicle sheet? If so, could you look at any of the quests you did to tick a box, or only the last one you completed? If the last one, can you hold off until you complete a quest that matches one of your goals even if you got sufficient for XP earlier on?

Yes, as per the instructions on the first page of the PDF, as long as you earn 1XP and a Chronicle sheet, you may apply it. Also, since Silverhex is six short adventures that form one full adventure, I don't have a problem with the player deciding which one box to check from the assortment of adventures just completed.

**
Can I use these cards when playing a pregenerated character? I seem to remember that all pregen characters are considered part of the Grand Lodge. Does that mean I can only work towards those goals and apply the credit to my own character if my own character is part of the Grand Lodge as well?
For an example: I'll be playing my first PFS game this week. I have a 1st level character made (allied with the Exchange), but I won't play her yet. Instead, I'll play Kyra. How would this work in terms of these new factions cards?

No. You have to play your actual character to check off a box for your character's faction.

**
So if you complete two objectives in the same scenario/module you can only choose one to check off?

This is correct. The objectives and boons are meant to be spaced out over the course of a character's career (or at least over the course of 5–6 levels). Earning multiple checks over the course of an adventure would quickly fill in the card, earn the boons more quickly than intended, and mean that the character would have no further reason to continue participating in the faction's cause.

**
Are faction missions as part of scenarios now going to continue or is this a complete replacement?

I still intend to include the occasional scenario with strong ties to a particular faction, likely accompanied by a related boon. After all, I've really enjoyed the storytelling potential of powerhouses like the Destiny of the Sands trilogy, a particular pair of Season 6 Liberty's Edge adventures, and the Season 5 evolution of the Taldor faction, and tying a few scenarios to particular factions' stories can be very potent. That said, the frequency will not be the same as we have seen in Seasons 5 and 6. The Faction Journal Cards now cover the lion's share of faction involvement on a scenario-by-scenario basis.
This frees up the scenario schedule in some exciting ways, granting me more capacity to set adventures in interesting (and often new) locations—even if they don't have a critically important element tied to a faction. As a result, I think folks will really enjoy where Season 7 takes us.

**
Does something done to or by my animal companion/familiar/mount count as being done to me? For example, if my animal companion escapes from a grapple or makes a subsequent save, does that count?

I believe we have established in the past that animal companions, familiars, eidolons, and the like are not members of any faction; only the PC is. As a result—barring any elements I'm not considering—I am inclined to say no.

**
Just to be clear, these can also be used the PFS Core campaign?
This was asked earlier but it'd be nice to get an official clarification.

Yes they can

**
If I have filled the entire goal of GM, can the next time I GM and apply the chronicle to the character, can I check a different box? One that was still complete able in that scenario of course.
Additionally, if I GM for a high level game (such as a 3-7 or 5-9) can I check the GM box, even if the character getting the chronicle is not in range yet, or do I need to wait till I can apply the chronicle to check the box?

You can only check off GM boxes when you Gm. You can't check off any of the "player" boxes for GMing.

To your second question, the answer is yes.

**
For Dark Archive, is it safe to assume that an artifact is any magic item we are assigned to procure but don't actually get to keep? This happens a lot in PFS Scenarios and I'm not sure which ones are actually artifacts.

Yes

To clarify this point further, it requires the recovery of an object that is actually an artifact-level magic item (i.e. A minor artifact or major artifact); just recovering a flashy magic item MacGuffin is not sufficient.

**
With APs you can tick a box in either PFS or non-PFS mode.
Michael Brock said you must play your PFS character to check off boxes. In non-pfs mode you don't play your PFS character. Why would my completely different PC in a home game AP that isn't a member of the faction be able to advance my PFS character's goals?

It's the nature of allowing home play for APs. In the same line of questioning, why would a completely different PC in a home game AP that isn't a member of the Pathfinder Society be able to receive a Chronicle with gold, XP, and PPs? It is the one side case where people are just going to have to make the best of it.

**
For the Grand Lodge faction, do the various city-states in the Mwangi Expanse (e.g. Nantambu) count as different nations? What about areas outside of national boundaries, like the Kaava lands?

Use the regions presented in the Inner Sea World Guide (or the list presented on PathfinderWiki's Geography page) as a guideline. Although I find it somewhat distasteful to paint the entire Mwangi Expanse as a monolithic region, it's rather difficult to delineate what counts as a "new region" otherwise. Even with this in mind there are dozens and dozens of distinct regions that would qualify.

**
<This answer and response speaks to Day Jobs and whether one has to actually abe trained in a Day Job to “forgo it.”>

Does a PC need to have a legal Day Job skill in order to "spend" a Day Job check for this? Or does she need to spend a PP?

Think of a character having a Day Job opportunity at the end of a scenario. Some characters don't have a Day Job, and the opportunity is wasted. Some have a Treasure Map boon and use that instead. Whether a character has the appropriate skill or not is irrelevant to this particular Chronicle sheet; he or she still has that chunk of down time.


What's the thought on a Neutral Good Ranger who worships Gorum and decides to join the Silver Crusade?

The Ranger believes in taking the best parts of Gorum and melding it with his own ranger-esque approach so he's kind of a deviant worshiper of Gorum, not against using diplomacy but not afraid to go with the stick/intimidate if diplomacy breaks down.

EDIT:
From the Inner Sea Gods, it says this about Gorum,

ISG wrote:
It is more pleasing to Gorum to see a soldier fight a score of battles in his lifetime than die in the first, and if compromises or truces mean warriors live on to fight again, he supports diplomacy over seeing every soldier fight to a pointless death,

I think this works for Silver Crusade as well. Gorum is focused on the struggle between entities and the SC is focused on eradicating demons and undead. I like the fit, because the fit itself is a struggle. The ranger was Grand Lodge and SC seems to suggest more battles against evil.


I am curious about people who regularly use poison with their characters in PFS. I'd be interested in details about:

1. How often do you use it?

2. What class and feats did you go with to aid poison use?

3. Was there a point/level in the build when it became viable?

4. How much do you spend on poison per scenario, on average?

Thanks.


So I just completed a module and I leveled from 2 to 3. A couple of questions:

1. Can I use the gold/prestige as a 2nd level character or do I have to use it as a 3rd?

2. At the end of the session, can I perform skill checks as a 2nd level or 3rd level?


Was wondering how one leverages the crafting part of Swift Alchemy in PFS?

PRD wrote:
Swift Alchemy (Ex): At 4th level, an investigator can create alchemical items with astounding speed. It takes an investigator half the normal amount of time to create alchemical items. He can also apply poison to a weapon as a move action instead of a standard action.


1. Where is the official current date of Golarion kept for PFS?

2. When I run scenarios from seasons past, what date do I use for the scenario? I assume the current date, but wondered if this has all been talked about/worked out.


The FAQ says that all items crafted must be listed on the Chronicle sheet, but that FAQ was written in December of 2011.

Does that requirement still apply, or do we know just list these items on the Inventory Tracking Sheets and note the amount on the Chronicle?

Also, what about spells. Do they need to be individually listed on the Chronicle as well?

Thanks for any clarifying answers.


I know we all have this image of a treasure chest lashing out with multiple pseudopods...but where in the rules does it say a mimic who has grappled one foe with its slam attack is able to make another slam against a different individual?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/mimic.html#mimic

There isn't even a mention of multiple limbs or pseudopods in the description.


I have a 2nd level Investigator. Per the retrain rules in Ultimate Campaign and PFS, how long/much would it take me to retrain into the Empiricist?

Thanks in advance for answers.

Retrain rules in UC:

You can use the retraining rules to acquire an archetype for your class or abandon an archetype you have.

To gain an archetype that replaces standard class abilities you already have, you must spend 5 days for every alternate class feature you would add, subtract, or replace by taking that archetype. At the end of the training period, you lose the standard class features and replace them with the archetype's alternate class features (if any).

To abandon an archetype, you must spend 5 days for every alternate class feature you already have from that archetype. At the end of the retraining, you lose the archetype's class features and gain the standard class features for the class.

Swapping one archetype for another requires two retraining sessions: one to abandon the archetype, and then one to gain the new one.

Note that you don't have to use the retraining rules to take an archetype if your class level is low enough that the archetype doesn't modify any of your current class abilities. For example, if you're a 1st-level fighter who wants the archer archetype, that archetype doesn't replace any class abilities until fighter level 2, so you don't need to use the retraining rules at all—once you reach 2nd level, you can just decide to take the archer archetype.

Example: Logan's 4th-level fighter has the archer archetype. Because he is 4th level, he has two alternative class features from his archetype (hawkeye at 2nd level and trick shot at 3rd level), so he must spend 10 days and 400 gp retraining to abandon this archetype. If he were 5th level, he would also have the expert archer alternative class feature, which would increase his retraining to 15 days and 750 gp.

Class Feat to be replaced at 2nd level:

Ceaseless Observation (Ex):

An empiricist's ability to notice the minutiae of almost everything that happens around him allows him to make shrewd and insightful calculations about people and even inanimate objects. At 2nd level, an empiricist uses his Intelligence modifier instead of the skill's typical ability for all Disable Device, Perception, Sense Motive, and Use Magic Device checks. He can also use his Intelligence modifier instead of Charisma on any Diplomacy checks made to gather information.

This ability replaces poison lore and poison resistance.

I'm wanting to say it's 5 days = 100gp ...and is it 5 PP...one per day?


...to jump on the Seahawks' bandwagon, especially since the Bulldogs can't win the Super Bowl.

I still say Luck is better than sliced bread.


The ability reads as thus:

Poison Lore wrote:
An investigator has a deep understanding and appreciation for poisons. At 2nd level, he cannot accidentally poison himself when applying poison to a weapon. If the investigator spends 1 minute physically examining the poison, he can attempt a Knowledge (nature) check to identify any natural poison or Knowledge (arcana) check to identify any magical poison (DC = the poison's saving throw DC). Lastly, once a poison is identified, he can spend 1 minute and attempt a Craft (alchemy) check (DC = the poison's saving throw DC) to neutralize 1 dose of the poison. Success renders the dose harmless. The investigator has no chance of accidentally poisoning himself when examining or attempting to neutralize a poison.

Is this ability limited to neutralizing poison in a vial? If so, how is that useful? I'm trying to understand how/why the designers would create an ability that only allows one to neutralize poison in a vial?

Or, can an Investigator neutralize poison from a creature bite, provided she ID's the creature/poison?


11 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

@John, MIke,

Just thought I'd check in and see if there was any news on this. I realize that it's not a high priority, but all eight of us (with me accounting for two of those) have been waiting since the play test if crafting would be reinstated.

John gave us hope with this:

John Compton wrote:

***

Investigator Crafting
Typically Mike and I discuss these decisions before ruling, so having not had an opportunity to confirm my inclination, I can't give a 100% certified answer; it's just something we didn't cover while going through all of the book's other options during our Additional Resources meeting. That said, I strongly suspect investigators will be able to craft in the same way that alchemists craft.

Thanks for any reply.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Per the PRD:

Improved Precise Shot wrote:

Improved Precise Shot (Combat)

Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment and cover.

Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment in Combat.

So I'm looking at the miss chance aspect, not the AC from cover. I've seen a couple of other threads on IPS and people seem to be parsing it incorrectly. IPS ignores anything except Total Cover and Total Concealment. Previous posts have read that it only works against miss chance vs Concealment.

Let's look at Displacement:

Quote:
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

Displacement is NOT Total Concealment. It simply creates a 50% miss chance. Per IPS...that should be ignored since it's a miss chance that is not created by Total Concealment.

Is there a FAQ or post from a designer which addresses this?


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Apologies if this was answered directly, but my brain is having trouble parsing the responses:

These are fictional hypotheticals:

1. I have a character that started out in Cheliax. She completed the scenario 5-43 License to Ill in Season 5 and got a Cheliax boon to buy Demon Spice at half price whenever she likes. If I change her faction to Liberty's Edge, do I lose the ability to use that Boon?

2. I have a 3rd level character who started out in Silver Lodge. I have assigned a GM credit to her that won't take affect until she's 4th. The GM credit was reported as Silver Lodge faction and there is a Silver Lodge faction reward that let's her get half price off of healing spells with the Silver Lodge. If I change the character to Dark Archives, do I still get the benefit of that faction boon?

3. For #2, is the answer dependent on when I move her to Dark Archives?

4. If the answer for #2 is no, I don't get the benefit of the faction reward, can I assign the chronicle to a different character or change the faction reported?

Thanks for clearing this up.

FYI, others can ask questions here too.


There's something I am confused by. Let me present two scenarios and see if I can figure it out by the answers I get.

Scenario A:

NPC gulps a potion of Invisibility and steps around the corner to see a 30' hallway with a closed door at the end. The NPC decides to sneak down to the door. The NPC's Stealth modifier is 0 and the NPC takes 10.

On the other side of the closed door there is a PC standing guard. The door's sound modifier is +5. What is the target DC for the PC to perceive the NPC?

Before you read the next example, please write down your answer.

Scenario B:

Same as Scenerio A with the following exception:

After the NPC steps round the corner, the PC opens the door and stands guard. What is the target DC for the PC to perceive the NPC?

For both scenarios, ignore the distance modifiers.


While it's hardly news worthy that Paizo has a customer because of PFS, I post this as an endorsement of Mike Brock, John Compton, and the rest of the PFS staff.

Are they perfect? No, but only I am deserving of that label.

All seriousness aside, I would not have purchased any of the many products I own were it not for PFS. Anyone else attribute their Paizo purchases strictly to PFS?

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>