Bongo BigBounce's page

When making 10th level PCs for this, would we use the PF2e Treasure for New Characters (table 10-10) to determine gear or another method?

Is this PC only or will it be on consoles as well?

On page 112 of the playtest document in the Soldier section under Suppressing Fire section it says "A suppressed target takes a –1 circumstance penalty on attack rolls and takes a –10-foot status penalty to its Speeds." However on page 256 under conditions it says "You take a –1 circumstance penalty to attack rolls and take a –5-foot status penalty to all your Speeds." Is this an error, or are Soldiers more effective at suppressing targets?

Check out the Season of Ghosts adventure path, it may have what you seek.

I could live with the AC loss, but those saves are just bad at any level.

First of all their save progression is terrible. Starts at Trained Fort, Expert Ref, and expert Will. Not bad, sure. First bump, Fortitude to expert, does not come until 9th level. Next bump, at 11th, is Will to master with success bump. Last comes at 15th, reflex to master with success bump. No legendary saves. Combine that with the fact that neither Dex nor Wis are not going to be very high on most Commanders, it has some of the worst saves in the game.

On AC, the problem is that a an INT key attribute class you can't have a +4 STR until 5th level. So that means no +6/+0 armor until 5th level. Therefore you are limited to +5/+1 armor until 5th level and you will lag behind 1 point on AC unless you invest in DEX, which becomes redundant for AC purposes at 5th level.

I love the idea of the class and am looking forward to play testing it, but I'm concerned about it living long enough to do it's cool stuff.

Thank you, that's what I thought. I like the idea of chucking a bomb and having Noise Blast or some such going off when it hits.

Can a Starlight Span Magus use Spellstrike with bombs? I can't find anything that says no, but I know I'm quite capable of missing things so I figured I would consult you fine folks.

Thank you for your specific call outs for different types of witches. I've just begun playing Kingmaker with a Resentment witch whose background has draconic symbiology, and I found the info about the Fairie dragon's breath weapon enlightening. I do find the Dragon Trait disappointing as well. It could have included a limited use breath weapon or senses, or something!

As for the Wand of Pampered Pet *sigh* Take My Money!

@Unicore Thank you for the idea of using druid as the archetype.

OP Here. Thank you all for your input! I found myself wondering about this as I contemplated a Kitsune Eldritch Trickster Rogue for the Seasons of Ghosts AP campaign that would include the free archetype rules from the GmG. While I feel it would be thematically strong to have both the Sorcerer and Psychic archetypes on a high CHA Rogue, I'm trying to figure out how it would function mechanically and deliver Sneak Attack with cantrips. Any advice would be appreciated

With that change in the Remaster it seems like delivering Sneak Attack with a ranged spell is no longer possible. The wording in Sneak Attack makes no allowances for using spells. Am I missing something?

My question would be, do PCs have the Unique trait, thus raising the DC of RK to ID them?

Here we witness the start of what would become the Eoxians and the earliest ships in the Corpse Fleet.

Theory: Drandle Dreng is Zo!!!

Well done! Warden spells and Snares were the things I did not like/get about the Ranger. Now PLEASE for the sake of the anthropomorphic animal ancestries find us away to do Twin Takedown and the like with claws and other unarmed natural attacks.

It has always bothered me that you can't ready a 2 action spell in 2e. How am I supposed to cauterize that Hydra neck stump with a Produce Flame spell after the Fighter lops the head off?

Therefore I propose a new Ready option that allows you to spend 3 actions on your initiative in order to ready something that takes 2 actions like a spell or Double Slice for example.

Anybody see any problems or unforeseen consequences to this?

I made a "Wolf Spider" as an Anadi Animal Instinct (Wolf) Barbarian XD

Kudos to Jerry Wayne, a great guy and GM!

Fantasy-4

Any word on Foundry VTT as we approach the release date on this?

I support this union and hope that Paizo management will voluntarily recognize it swiftly.

I am fairly certain this Technomancer is missing 4 skill points.

Computers +13 (4 ranks +3 class skill +4 INT +2 insight from skill synergy), Culture +8 (4 ranks +4 INT), Mysticism +8 (4 ranks +3 class skil +0 WIS +2 insight from techlore), Physical Science +12 (4 ranks +3 class skill +4 INT +1 theme), Profession +9 (4 rank +3 class skill +0 CHA +2 insight from skill synergy), Sleight of Hand +10 (4 ranks +3 class skill +3 DEX), Stealth +9 (4 ranks +3 DEX +2 race), Survival +2 (+0 WIS +2 race)

A 4th level Technomancer with an 18 INT should have 32 skill points (4 x [4 skill points per level + 4 INT]) but it only has 28 skill points.

It's quite possible I'm missing something, but I can't figure it. I would recommend 4 ranks in Engineering as the Ysoki get a +2 racial bonus for a total of +13.

I thank anyone who can shed some light on this.

I am disappointed by this news. As I'm not a big fan of Bounties, and as the One-shots don't offer Reputation, I see this as a net loss. But you gotta do what you gotta do Paizo.

Like many folks I have significantly increased my online play recently. When I search on warhorn for games I encounter games/lodges not allowing non-locals to sign up until the last moment or at all. I also find some games/lodges limiting table size to less than OP legal limits, usually 5 players. Is this legal in organized play?

I agree whole heartedly. I refuse to run scenarios with starship combat. Since when to starships only fly in a 2 dimensional space? I especially like the idea of GMs being able to opt out of starship combat.

Thank you. So as I understand what you are saying, if I buy Starfinder AP #11 I can get the Artificial Third Eye, even if I have not played it. Affirmative? If so I'm glad the pdf sale is on.

I found the following on the Starfinder character options page : Ownership of Adventures or Adventure Path volumes is not required to use Character Options originally published in Adventures or Adventure Paths in the Starfinder Society campaign, as long as rules are referenced from the official Starfinder Resource Document (sfrd). A player must still have a chronicle sheet from a Scenario to use any options in that Scenario.
Does that last sentence mean I have to have a chronicle from that adventure in order to access items from it?

I want to buy my Mystic of Nyarlathotep an Artificial Third Eye, but I don't know if I can.

"You pretty wise Didy, we do it that way." BumBum will open the secret door when everyone is ready.

The Demoralize action under Intimidation has a range of 30 feet.

That Demoralize would use Intimidating Glare.

We are going to knock this guy out again, whomever has the best check will tie him up well, then we will hang him off the cliff about 15 feet down, gagged, and upside down. Any extra rope in the shed?

After hanging the Gozreh piñata BumBum will go back inside beyond the green curtain and start listening at and searching doors for Hazards, starting at the NE door.

BumBum will turn on him. "I's not eaten all day" Intimidate: 1d20 + 10 ⇒ (8) + 10 = 18

"Ooh's goodness the Mayor! Shoulda thought somethin' was wrong when's we didn't see you at the party." facepalm "More craziness! Who them guys, and what happened?

BumBum will move between the Mayor and the curtain, peeking behind it stealthily to see if more threats are lurking.

Wow, OP here, thanks again JTT for being so active. Knowing this concept is being considered by everyone here makes me very happy. I would suggest Icon as a replacement for Pawn as it is neutral in nature, the same # of letters, and fun to say.

Thank you JTT for your continuing efforts to allay our anxiety. I may not like all of your answers, but I appreciate your efforts to get them to us.

Can anyone tell me where in the Guide I can find the one minion rule? I can't find it and I want to be sure I understand it. Or is it something just in the new guide?

In the digitization blog thread there is discussion of the one minion rule (OMR), limiting players to having one minion. I have questions about that. What if you are a Leaf Order Druid with Order Explorer (Animal Order)? Does the OMR mean I can't have a companion and a familiar even though those feats and orders seem to be intended for just that? What about summoned creatures and figurines of wondrous power? They both have the minion trait. Does that mean, by the OMR, that PCs with familiars or companions can't cast summon spells or activate the figurines? I have little doubt that I don't know all the details, but it seems this was not thought out.

arcana: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (1) + 5 = 6 What does BumBum think the brooch is?

"Mr. Nellyn priest man, that other door to you's room? You want's us to check it for monsters? Maybe look under the bed? BumBum grimaces. "Thanks for the dog thing and the shiny." He then mumbles "Would rather have the gold than another dog, but ok"
then
"Didy's right, we should head back to the pitch. I's tired and almost out of pickles."

Will players be allowed to change feats such as Enhanced Resistance after this nerfing?

"You are probably thinking of PF1, it worked differently in that edition."

(Grognard moment) Thinking back a lot longer than that ;)

I think the concept of "harm" is the problem here. Is doing non lethal "harm"? If I command a summoned creature to do a trip action is it "harm"? If I make my allies better at harming you is it "harm"? If I cast a sustained area effect spell that an enemy walks into on his turn have I done "harm" on his turn? I see this as widely open to interpretation, and I think it deserves clarification or there will be significant table variation.

Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.

If sustaining a flaming sphere is a hostile action that would break invisibility, then would sustaining a summoned creature that attacks also break invisibility? The conjurer who summons from invisibility is a long standing tactic. What about using an action to order an animal companion or familiar to attack? Or inspire courage? In this case I feel we must think about all sustained actions that could be considered hostile.

SFS is going to ACP as well? I must have missed that. Can't say I like the idea since Paizo hasn't been able to get the ACP system up in a year.

Is it 40? alien archive lists a speed of 40 and the racial traits don't list a speed but I want to be sure. Thanks.

BumBum will search the area where we fought the snakes then follow where our group goes avoiding notice.

That would make the last 3 acts The Flamboni Sisters, The Feather Fall 5, and Eliza & Mr. Tickles.

So many animals in bad place right now! Bitey snakes, Sick snake, Gnawy rats. We piss off druid somewhere?

”Yup, these nets is finked”perception: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (12) + 5 = 17"Rat finked! Who we know train rats? I go see if I can cheer up Avery. Remind him birds gotta fly."any social skill: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (12) + 6 = 18"Maybe that help Axel feel better about act."

’Oh no’s, these nets all finked. Hope I can mend ‘em” crafting: 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (14) + 4 = 18"There that should do. Somebody messing with show big time! I bets it Mistress Dusklight.”

less points of contact required?

Zero interest in published adventures, very little interest in setting fluff, Primarily here for the game [as an extension of 3rd edition D&D]

Can't handle it anymore. 3E/Pathfinder is too tedious, too bloated, too soulless and bureaucratic. I'm glad there's a better alternative now.

The adventure paths and campaign setting are great, but I'd much rather run them in a lighter, more flexible system that doesn't feel like I'm auditing fantasy taxes when I sit down to prep a game. My hats off to you though; I don't know how you manage to find time to prep all original stuff for a game that cumbersome.

I left Pathfinder for D&D 5E and have never looked back.

Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

4E combat is too ponderous and slow for my tastes. It's great for big set piece battles, but not so much for room-by-room dungeon crawls. I think what happened is that the designers looked back on all their best and most memorable combats from previous editions and tried to engineer a system that would produce that result all the time, not realizing that a fight with a couple kobold sentries isn't supposed to feel epic.

In my opinion, the best thing to do with 4E combat is to jettison XP counting, and find some other system for leveling up PC's that doesn't rely on X encounters per adventure, then limit combat only to meaningful, high stakes encounters. So a room in a dungeon shouldn't be an encounter, a floor of a dungeon should be an encounter. Anything incidental, like a rogue sneaking up to a guard and slitting it's throat, can be handled via skill challenge.

I'm pretty much with you here outside of the 4E combats being too ponderous...though I'm not arguing particularly that they are not, for the most part, long. Just that this aspect does not bother me when done well.

There are elements one can do that get around this...lots of minions, very small numbers of elite and solo enemies that are powerful but have very few powers that, to some greater or lesser degree, get around the long combats.

There is also in some ways two 4Es to consider in this regards. Are your players playing Essentials at least predominantly or are their character choices predominantly AEDU based? High level AEDU characters have decks of powers and its going to take a while for each player to go through his combos every combat. Hence a DM with predominantly essentials based PCs, especially but not exclusively, at lower levels can run a pretty quick game.

If the PCs are predominantly AEDU there is no possible way the DM can really have a fast combat. The DM can make choices in the combat that will serve to significantly speed it up. However I would consider those options as something...

I'm not running 4E presently, but if I did I would definitely follow the model of 1-3 combats per plot point with a minimal emphasis put on small, incidental combats. This worked out very well for the last 4E game I played in, and when those little skirmishes did pop up, wthey were impromptu and we eschewed the map and minis altogether which was nice.

That's why I like to decouple advancement from experience points, the primary source of which is usually killing things. It saves me some bookkeeping and incentivizes players to adopt a more creative approach to problem solving.

Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

That chassis is a clunky old beater and it needs to be retired.

That chassis is a reliable and adaptable platform and it needs to be preserved.

See? It's easy to just say things and pretend their true, or at least universally true. The only word in your post that is factually accurate is "old". If old is a bad thing, feel free to let us know when you're done digging the new Grand Canyon, then we'll look at a new PF edition.

The 3E system is an unwieldy, bureaucratic mess that punishes newer and more casual gamers, and rewards obsessive, antisocial deckbuilders...by design. This is why my group(s) are happily dropping PF in favor of D&D 5E, and we're not the only ones.

It's not that 3E/PF is "old" exactly, it's that the game is getting obsolete. Bloated, rules-heavy games are a relic of the 90's. People want fast, streamlined and user-friendly rules rather than burying themselves in esoteric minutiae (and let me cut off your inevitable 4E comparison right here; 4E is by no means a "rules lite" game; it merely took much of 3E's complexity and moved it somewhere else). What Pathfinder needs, is a revision to take it into the direction of the beginner's box while fixing 3E's problems, which have been well documented at this point.

Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.

That is what the traditionalists do not want - we got into Pathfinder because it was a continuation of 3.5. We wanted to keep playing that game... with tweaks and improvements. You change the game to ignore those assumptions, and it is a vastly different game... and one I know I wouldn't play. A great deal of why I like PF is that it is built on that chassis.

That chassis is a clunky old beater and it needs to be retired.

Starting to have flashbacks as to why so many people were turned off of 4e - and it wasn't because of the system.

This is, was and will always be an utter cop out.

You can't blame people for defending their favorite game on an internet message board; that's what the forums are FOR. You would do the exact same thing if someone took a big wordcrap on your game of choice.

Yeah, 4vengers were a thing; so are paizils, 3bians, ossers, gurpivores, herophiles, wodsters, etc.

Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

Hell to the yes!

I'll still be picking up adventure paths from Paizo now and then, but system-wise I'm finally putting 3E/Pathfinder away for good and I won't be missing it.

That is all well and good, but what do your other heads say?

Green likes Call of Cthulhu

Hell to the yes!

I'll still be picking up adventure paths from Paizo now and then, but system-wise I'm finally putting 3E/Pathfinder away for good and I won't be missing it.