Search Posts
Always better to land 3 hits, attack once then double slice.You can use double slice in combination with hunt target. Turn 1 you use hunt target. Turn 2 you attack and then double slice. That way you have 3 attacks with minimal penalties.Yeah, combining Hunt Target and Double Slice is pretty potent. Is it better to attack once, then double strike at -3 or make two attacks at full BAB and then one at -6, though? That depends on how likely you are to hit with your first attack. Average Damage is even if the primary attack requires less than 15 to hit. If it requires 15 through 19, attacking twice without penalty is better. Landing 3 hits is the best outcome, but attacking before double slicing is only advantageous if taking -3, you hit on anything but a 1, but at -6, you can miss by rolling low. Basically, if you're VERY likely to hit, Strike then Double Slice; if you're unlikely to hit, Double Slice then Strike.
For the Puddles section, I checked that I had played as Kyra, and it then asked me questions about what character I made. I also selected I didn't come close to dying and it took me to the mortality survey. I'm not sure what other responses were misread. Also, I didn't know what the sections of the scenario were called. maybe a description when you ask if we've played "snippets" and "dragon" etc to help clarify/jog memories.
I'm on the brute squad. You are the brute squad.
While I disagree with the way he has comported himself through the majority of this thread, I feel the need to show that it's not this bad everywhere.
You could choose any wisdom-based class (like Empyreal Sorcerer- should stack with Seeker), worship Irori and take the Wisdom in the Flesh religion trait for Disable Device. edit: reasoning- full spellcasting, full trapfinding, full trap dismantlement, all on the same awesome ability score.
Most likely, it's because of the prevalence and potency of save or suck spells/abilities, combined with the ease of hitting with a firearm. S0S spells already effectively end fights early, and this feat compounds that. Not all bans get an explanation; if you haven't been able to find it, it might not have been explained.
Some of the things I would do: (mostly variations on what others have already offered) bump skills up to 4+ int for everyone but wizards Barbarian: just fix how raging temporary HP work to the unchained version Rogues: Free Weapon Finesse New feat: Dex instead of Str to damage (helps dex fighters and monks as well as rogues) Maybe rogues get it for free, I think it's existence should be enough. New Feat: Full attack as a standard New feat: Favorite spell - choose 1 spell, you treat that spell as being on your spell list for the purposes of UMD (even if you don't have a spell list) this will allow a group without a healer to have someone use a wand of CLW, several other options open up as well, without needing to invest in UMD.
Before we get into the dialogues, I will often call for initiatives. This allows me to make sure nobody is left out that wants to contribute, and allows bargaining gone bad to flow into combat easily. I don't worry about action limits until the combat action starts. I have also found that when the party has a diplomancer, there is a sense of urgency that usually leads to better roleplaying before he rolls the check.
Oh, and for the record, Fortification is much worse than a straight enhancement bonus unless most attackers depend on sneak attack. The opportunity cost of Lesser Fortification is +1 to AC, and on a character who otherwise gets hit 50% of the time, +1 AC corresponds to a 10% reduction in the number of incoming hits. If we assume that all opponents are falcata wielding crit fishers (17-20/x3), Lesser Fortification only negates about 8% of incoming damage. If you look at Greater Fortification vs +5 AC instead, it becomes 75% of crits vs 50% of all incoming attacks. Pricing an item based on fortification means you are aiming to create an atrociously bad item. If your armor is at a level where all bad guys need a crit to hit you or you've already hit +5, crit negation is the next most valuable thing you can get. If they had removed the AC bonus altogether, 5K would still be low for the 1/day Jingasa. Most days of adventuring for someone who is "unhittable", that is going to be all of the crits. The Jingasa would still be the BIS item for front-liners. (Which is not to say that BIS is bad, but people would pay more for that item.) If they had removed the crit negation, and left only a +1 luck bonus, it would still be under-priced (and yes, I get that there's a chart proving what it should cost, but there has to be leeway for balance that accounts for some items needing to cost more). It would change where it falls in your armor upgrade plan, but it would still come before making your amulet of natural armor or ring of protection +2. The Jingasa would still be the BIS item for front-liners, even without Fate's Favored.
This is correct. It may not be the intention of the rule, but the rules as written are quite explicit that this is how it works. There are two steps: assigning and applying. When assigning, you check only one thing: is the character lower level than the pregen played? If yes, you may assign it to that character. If no, you can't. Also, as a player, you must choose who gets the chronicle before you get the chronicle. Unless you've GM'd the scenario before, you won't know which character gets the most out of the chronicle until after you've decided who gets it. That knowledge is only held by GMs- who already have the chronicle available to any character that isn't currently past the tier. When applying, as soon as a character achieves the level of a pregen she has been assigned, all pregens of that level are applied immediately and in order, even if this causes the character to level up more than once. Those arguing that this is not how it works are arguing from a rules as intended perspective only, and many of us disagree that the intention is anything other than the wording in the rules. All of this debate will hopefully be moot in a few months when the new guide comes out. I just hope we will be able to recognize that whichever way it falls, there is a reason for that decision. Either it is a potentially exploitable situation that the PFS team wants to avoid, or closing the door causes too many potential issues with bookkeeping and paperwork to be worth avoiding those few possibly exploitative cases. Both of these are perfectly reasonable positions to hold, and we must trust the PFS team to do what is best for our community.
Increasing the cost would just shift the level when it is taken. Even at, say, 20k, there comes a point where it is cost effective just for the +1 (or +2 if fates favored) bonus to AC with the crit removal being a nice extra. I agree very much with this. It's also why I think so many things are overpriced. They're overpriced to make the point of entry higher. The unintended consequence is that the point of entry becomes never.
then drops you and anyone next to you in a hellwasp swarm (3d6 damage, Poison (DC20?) and Distraction), as well as inflicting you personally with Nausea for the round (DC18 Fort). I did not read it that way, the only part of the drawback looked to me like the 1 round of (possible) nausea, to start the day with 20 temporary hit points, every day. I can see where you get that. It says they animate and swarm around you, but it doesn't say where to look for hellwasp swarm stats, which is what I would have expected if they actually attack you. I doubt I'd be interested at any price if it kicked your butt like that at the end of the 20hp. Pretending it does only nauseate you, I'd think there would be a few low hp characters that would be pretty close to sold at a 25% discount.
With any item that is too expensive, the simplest way to correct the item is to change the price. Most items don't need to change how they function, simply how much they cost. Balancing errata would ideally almost always happen on the price point. If the Jingasa had gone up to 10-12K, how many people would actually just give it up? My guess is that at 10K, the vast majority that could would keep it and at 12K, people start changing their minds. Check out the Unbowed armor enhancement from Armor Master's Handbook. I doubt I would consider taking it as a +1, but it's +5. I suspect it's really only useful for the BBEG. I think a more interesting question is "What is the coolest Item you would never buy because of it's price, and at what price would you consider buying it?" At what price would you buy the Abrogalian Corset?
Even if you advance multiple levels =/= you can apply chronicles that you are out of tier for. But you weren't out of tier when you played and assigned the chronicle, only when you applied it. The guide only calls out assignment with respect to relative level, not application. Then it explains what to do when applying the chronicles. apply <> assign.
For example, you could use a level 7 pregen to play 3 scenarios at 3-7, then play 6 scenarios at 5-9, and then play 6 more scenarios at 7-11. If you can do this, why on earth does it matter what order those scenarios were played in?
I don't know if there's still time for faction journal card edits, but the Season 7 guide states :
It would be pretty cool if one of the faction card rewards was that boon. Maybe at 4+ goals we could choose between a Quadiran-focused reward and reengaging the family connections.
What do you do in the case that: a) Previously almost dead character doesn't have the fame to acquire a Breath of Life scroll?b) Previously almost dead character doesn't have the gold to afford a Breath of Life scroll? c) Previously almost dead character says "no"? These questions will arise if this rule idea were to be implemented officially. My personal preference would be that, if they were able AND willing, the beneficiary of such aid would be allowed to replace said aid. They would have to buy the same item that was used on them (with whatever discounts or added costs their character incurs) and be allowed to transfer those items only.
The use of the phrases, "You are educated," and "fields of study" make it unequivocal that K. checks represent education and education alone. That's right. You can invest skill points to increase your education. You can go back to school. That says nothing about what you know from actually fighting these creatures. You are asserting a false assumption that the only kind of education one can get is through formal education. So in a home campaign, as the party makes its way through a dungeon and levels up, I am assuming you wouldn't allow them to spend skill points on knowledge skills since they can't go back to Golarion U. for more of that education. The truth is experiential education exists. Most video games exemplify this. You can read the manual, but the manual can only get you so far. You have to try, and try different ways to learn how to win. You also have to work at it and retain that expertise. I am awful at video games because I don't focus on retaining that expertise. In a Pathfinder sense, I choose not to put my skill points there. I know other people who are very good at certain games, they so choose to put their skill points into those games. It's not that I didn't play World of Warcraft for thousands of hours, I simply didn't choose to make getting GOOD at it a priority. There are many things that we experience daily, but most of it we don't retain, won't remember in a few days, often even when we tell ourselves "I've gotta remember that!" Recollection is imperfect. You have to work at it, and even then, it is imperfect. If you don't put the effort in, you are less likely to recall the thing you need to. The idea that this is not (at least in part) what knowledge checks represent, I can't help you.
I don't disagree with the first part here. However, as to my example of leveling up in a dungeon, how do you gain an education mid-crawl if that education is not gained through what you have fought and encountered?
Can you provide a quote from the PFS Guide or a FAQ that supports your assertion? I would actually argue to the contrary as 1) all boons are useable in subsequent scenarios, and 2) the Faction Journal Card is based on a continuity of character actions. In other words, things I did in a previous scenario can absolutely affect me in a current scenario. But there IS a system for recording your character's information. There are things your character is explicitly capable of, and has explicitly accomplished. These are absolutes, even if they've been falsified and the honor of the honor system broken; there is a system for keeping that info. There is also an intentional process for how to handle knowledge checks. It does involve a process of recording what you've fought, but that system requires your character to have spent time studying and remembering those facts. The recording is done in the form of skill points in the appropriate knowledge skill. If your character decided to work harder at improving their craft, profession, or the keenness of their sight/hearing, and neglected those knowledge skills; then they have decided NOT to spend time reviewing and retaining the nuances of fighting a particular monster. If my players keep a journal of their adventures, and can show me where they think they fought this monster before, I let them treat it as a masterwork tool for their check. If it wasn't the same monster, they don't get the bonus. As far as chronicles go, there are ones that give you a bonus against certain monsters, so it's not as if the "memorable" monsters can't stick with your character outside of your own choice to study; the benefit just translates differently in those cases. There is no system for perfect recollection, because memory can always be fallible.
In many scenarios, the Society acts as a MacGuffin, a reason for you being in a place, sent after an item or an agreement. If needed, you can simply have the Venture Captain hire out the PCs, instead of order them out on a mission. I've had a lot of fun running Decline of Glory (0-24) A great combo is Black Waters (0-06) and School of Spirits (7-05), they tie together without needing the Society thread. If they hit level 3 or higher, Blood at Dralkard Manor may be my favorite scenario (It's murder at level 1-2, so they retired it)
For the next guide, could we get a page with all of the GM-friendly tables on it?
I usually make my own, but I think this would help a lot of GMs, particularly new ones.
But what about those DMs that want you to permanently change other people's characters that play at their tables. I have never met a GM who wanted me to change other peoples' characters. I've only ever made a player make changes to a character when it had an obviously illegal option (a modern firearm is literally the only case I can recall). Any option that is legal for the character to have should not be required or requested to be changed. I would hope GMs that behave that way don't last long as GMs.
Always available items don't have fame requirements, but for items that DO have fame requirements (Like whenever you want to upgrade to +2), your fame will need to cover the ENTIRE cost of the item, not just the portion that you are currently paying for. In your example, had the GM been correct about needing fame for the armor, he would have been incorrect in allowing you to split up the purchase as a means of bypassing fame requirements.
You should also note that using an item in the scenario you found it will not impact the charges it has when you purchase it. You buy the item fresh from the sheet, meaning the one you buy will have it's first chance to glitch the first time you use it after that scenario. You will need to check for a glitch upon picking it up and using it in the scenario but any glitches that occur during said scenario (additional charges lost or regained) don't carry over to the purchased item. |
