Eligos

Daniel_Clark's page

Organized Play Member. 49 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 13 Organized Play characters.


RSS

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Why did this need a bump? It's four pages deep and the OP's question has been answered multiple times.

OP: A thread for discussing why a new version/system pathfinder is being introduced.

This is not a question, but in answer to your statement I can't stand the fact that they are coming out with a new edition and I want to communicate to others (and developers since they have commented on this particular thread) my thoughts and ideas on the issue.

hence the bump.

Grand Lodge

Bump

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
Daniel_Clark wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:


Also, how is a 5% chance of an untrained person doing something Opposed skill checks are often decided by a single roll. This means that in the case of the demi-god legend, the scruffy idiot will win 5% of time, and not never or 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the time in the case of the outmatched kobold.

You are still missing the point of "the task they are trying".

This is not about two climbers trying to climb the Empire state. This is about two climbers trying to get over a fence. To climb the empire state, the "scruffy idiot" cannot even try, at all.

This is not about you being better than LeBron James at Basketball. It's about you scoring better from the free throw line when shooting a serie of 10. And yes, it can happen. No, it doesn't mean you are going to posterize people, make dunks, catch alleyoops, or do cross court passes better than him. You probably cannot even try an alleyoop (I cann't, certainly). But yes, sometimes, with a lot of luck, you can do something basic well enough.

I mean, since we're talking about one roll, it's like if you and LeBron each made a single free throw, and LeBron missed his (his career average was just under 75%) and you made yours (I have no idea what your average is, but if it's better than 20%, you are more likely to make your single free throw while LeBron misses his than 5%).

That's not how statistics work. You can't apply the long run average to a single instance in that manner.

That's like saying since 25% of eggs have salmonella you can't ever safely make a 4 egg omelette.
It is actually how independent events work in probability. If LeBron has a 1/4 chance of missing and you have a 1/5 chance of making it, the chance that LeBron will miss and you will make it is 1/20. The analogous egg example would be if 1 in 4 eggs have salmonella, the chance of taking two...

I guess I read what you said wrong, it sounded like you were stating the probability of my shot was dependant on his.

On reread I see that it was me reading it incorrectly, and hats off for posting the Wiki link. I was trolling a bit there and got excited that I had ya. Thanks for being gracious about it.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
eddv wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:

They have explicitly stated that they have tightened up the math all around and part of that is with the proficiency system. Yeah, it is not a huge spread but without the huge span of DCs, smaller bonuses are more important. This was an explicit design choice.

Come on, guys. They aren't just strapping this to the old system and letting it go free. They want the spread to be lower so there aren't so many situations where "your skill is not as high as mine so you may as well not even try" comes up. Not just among untrained vs. trained but trained vs. specialized.

Those situations were not fun and definitely not helping game design. "Oh, we have to sneak into this fortress, but we only have two people trained in stealth so everyone else should just go relax at the inn or something".

I feel like a lot of you guys are just being willfully obtuse about things.

We lack a LOT of definitions right now is the biggest thing.

What level of power are skill feats? What sorts of things are gated behind Training, Legendary, Master, etc? At what point does the difference between an untrained person with an incidentally good stat stop outstripping a trained person without a good stat (say a sorceror with no training in Handle Animal, but a high charisma score vs a fighter with a low charisma and a horse so therefore training in Handle Animal)?

And frankly there are a lot of ways to really completely botch this proposed system based on the answers to some of those questions, especially regarding things that are locked behind the gates of proficiency and feat. Too strict and you've done all of this game design for no reason because no one can really use skills in most situations unless they happen to be niche specialized. Too loose and you get the verisimilitude problems some people seem to be worried about.

These are some of the big overarching question that makes it nearly impossible to discuss things without plugging in holes with PF1 game design

...

It's not our fault that this is the manner in which they are releasing information. If I want to respond in a negative manner because they are not supplying us with sufficient information i should be free to do so. Nearly everything else I've heard about P2.0 has seemed rather stupid to be frank. I feel this is the appropriate place to share these concerns. It is a public forum after all.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
vagabond_666 wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:


Also, how is a 5% chance of an untrained person doing something Opposed skill checks are often decided by a single roll. This means that in the case of the demi-god legend, the scruffy idiot will win 5% of time, and not never or 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the time in the case of the outmatched kobold.

You are still missing the point of "the task they are trying".

This is not about two climbers trying to climb the Empire state. This is about two climbers trying to get over a fence. To climb the empire state, the "scruffy idiot" cannot even try, at all.

This is not about you being better than LeBron James at Basketball. It's about you scoring better from the free throw line when shooting a serie of 10. And yes, it can happen. No, it doesn't mean you are going to posterize people, make dunks, catch alleyoops, or do cross court passes better than him. You probably cannot even try an alleyoop (I cann't, certainly). But yes, sometimes, with a lot of luck, you can do something basic well enough.

I mean, since we're talking about one roll, it's like if you and LeBron each made a single free throw, and LeBron missed his (his career average was just under 75%) and you made yours (I have no idea what your average is, but if it's better than 20%, you are more likely to make your single free throw while LeBron misses his than 5%).

That's not how statistics work. You can't apply the long run average to a single instance in that manner.

That's like saying since 25% of eggs have salmonella you can't ever safely make a 4 egg omelette.

Grand Lodge

BryonD wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Daniel_Clark wrote:
BryonD wrote:

So this sounds truly horrible.

But the replies from Mark strongly suggest that it isn't nearly as truly horrible as it sounds. Then I read the blog post again and it still sounds truly horrible.
So I am concluding that there is more context to be heard and it doesn't really make sense without that context.
I'm ok with that. I've seen plenty of goodness to just be mildly nervous and wait.
But please, if context is critical to really understanding how something works and you don't want to share the context yet, please just don't jump ahead with sharing stuff that needs the context.

Sorry if that sounds petty. But that's my take on this update.
I went from excited to really turned off. Then I went from really turned off to just ambivalent while I wait to actually see some context.

You think maybe they aren't using a d20 for skill checks anymore? That's the only way this math works out. D6 + skill score would explain why there is this spread of 5 from untrained to legendary.
I suppose I can only really say "I don't know". But, no, I doubt that is it. The vague replies suggest that there are other *consistent and persistent* modifiers such that the gap is bigger and this system is just a foundation. If that really is true then great. The blog post suggests otherwise. I'm just hoping that the blog post is written from a perspective so deeply in tune with the system that it didn't consider how a peek looks to someone on the outside.
This is only the bonus (well, modifier since it could be negative for untrained) based on proficiency. There are still all the other bonuses and penalties from other factors. It's like saying that in Starfinder, the maximum difference between the base attack bonus of any two characters is at most +5 at level 20 or the maximum difference in base saving throws in a class is 6 in PF1 and Starfinder; while this is true (15 BAB vs 20 BAB, +6
...

Great point!

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Daniel_Clark wrote:
BryonD wrote:

So this sounds truly horrible.

But the replies from Mark strongly suggest that it isn't nearly as truly horrible as it sounds. Then I read the blog post again and it still sounds truly horrible.
So I am concluding that there is more context to be heard and it doesn't really make sense without that context.
I'm ok with that. I've seen plenty of goodness to just be mildly nervous and wait.
But please, if context is critical to really understanding how something works and you don't want to share the context yet, please just don't jump ahead with sharing stuff that needs the context.

Sorry if that sounds petty. But that's my take on this update.
I went from excited to really turned off. Then I went from really turned off to just ambivalent while I wait to actually see some context.

You think maybe they aren't using a d20 for skill checks anymore? That's the only way this math works out. D6 + skill score would explain why there is this spread of 5 from untrained to legendary.
I suppose I can only really say "I don't know". But, no, I doubt that is it. The vague replies suggest that there are other *consistent and persistent* modifiers such that the gap is bigger and this system is just a foundation. If that really is true then great. The blog post suggests otherwise. I'm just hoping that the blog post is written from a perspective so deeply in tune with the system that it didn't consider how a peek looks to someone on the outside.
This is only the bonus (well, modifier since it could be negative for untrained) based on proficiency. There are still all the other bonuses and penalties from other factors. It's like saying that in Starfinder, the maximum difference between the base attack bonus of any two characters is at most +5 at level 20 or the maximum difference in base saving throws in a class is 6 in PF1 and Starfinder; while this is true (15 BAB vs 20 BAB, +6 base save vs +12 base save), it's...

What you say makes sense since we are talking attacks and saving throws. I think most people view skills differently, which is why using the same math doesn't work. (At least to a layman)

Btw he didn't say they aren't taking away our D20's

Grand Lodge

BryonD wrote:

So this sounds truly horrible.

But the replies from Mark strongly suggest that it isn't nearly as truly horrible as it sounds. Then I read the blog post again and it still sounds truly horrible.
So I am concluding that there is more context to be heard and it doesn't really make sense without that context.
I'm ok with that. I've seen plenty of goodness to just be mildly nervous and wait.
But please, if context is critical to really understanding how something works and you don't want to share the context yet, please just don't jump ahead with sharing stuff that needs the context.

Sorry if that sounds petty. But that's my take on this update.
I went from excited to really turned off. Then I went from really turned off to just ambivalent while I wait to actually see some context.

You think maybe they aren't using a d20 for skill checks anymore? That's the only way this math works out. D6 + skill score would explain why there is this spread of 5 from untrained to legendary.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kenneth.T.Cole wrote:

Let's not deny the facts.

There is no need for a 2nd edition of Pathfinder. The rules work, and the material they have added is very well balanced.

Creating a new set of rules only creates a new set of problems.
Want proof? Check out every version of every other game system that created multiple editions.
examples:
D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E
Shadowrun, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR5
GURPS, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E
and the list goes on...

Paizo DID say they would never update the rules (they actually couldn't under the d20 OGL). I'm not sure what their intention is on dealing with that from a legal point of view.

They never said they would not create a 2nd Edition, but they did Imply it! If you were there for the early discussions, you will remember they founded Pathfinder on the idea that they were tired of the constant rules updates and changes (2E to 2.5 to 3E to 3.5) and wanted a system that wouldn't change the CORE rules. They bought the OGL with the stated intent to, Reprint and Retain the basic core system.

However, they never did say they wouldn't re-invent their own additions to the game. I am just surprised that they gave in to temptation and are doing it.

The arguments for a new edition are always the same;, "After years of playing we know what we need to fix.", "We have more experience and can do it better now.", "Players want something different now than they did when we first started.", "It isn't about the money, it's about supporting the players.", "We want to make it easier for new players to get into it."

I have a response for every one of those:

"After years of playing we know what we need to fix."
NO, after years of play you've realized there is no such thing as a perfect system and have fallen for the same argument you once fought against that a complete revision can fix the problems.

"We have more experience and can do it better now."
NO, what you did then was perfectly fine and what you're doing now is perfectly fine. To imply that nothing you did before was worth...

Here here!

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Divorce from the tried and true (and weathered) half-orc, half-elf, gnome, halfling paradigm.

You're in for luck, goblins will be core.

How in the world can you make goblins core? They are an evil race that are generally killed on sight. Now I'm supposed to believe that they are tolerated in cities? Why on earth would that happen?

This is precisely the kind of bull crap I don't want in my games.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:

Most of the arguments here for a new system are reminiscent for 4e, yet gamers still felt that they were losing a great deal of support with it coming out. I myself felt that way when all the splat books I got really were worthless. Especially if I wanted to continue doing organized play. And then Paizo came along with Pathfinder and gave us something to use our old stuff while also getting more support, both rules-wise and adventure-wise.

The thing people are forgetting is that Pathfinder was built on giving 3.5 fans most support, both ruleswise and adventurewise. And now a decade later, we're faced with the same issues that WotC dealt us. I'm not really happy about this, no. I like 3.5 and I'd rather not see a full blown new edition that invalidates any support for the books I bought from Paizo. I don't like 5e and truthfully, I'm not a fan of Starfinder. If Pathfinder 2e is going to be like those, I just don't see myself shelling out more money for it. Especially if they are pulling the plug on supporting PF1.

I'm not happy with this. If my GM were still alive, he'd be very sad about hearing this.

I agree, old ads for pathfinder stated that not only is 3.5 alive its Thriving over at Pathfinder. I don't want a new system. I liked 3E, which is why I jumped ship when 4E came out. Now they are saying buy our new system. No, i like Pathfinder the way it is. if I wanted a new system I wouldn't have bought Pathfinder in the first place.

Any opinion on this Erik Mona? How are we not supposed to feel left out in the cold when you are CHANGING the game we love?

Grand Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:

I'm out.

Starfinder wasn't backwards compatible so this version won't be either, thus invalidating a shelf of Pathfinder books.

Not what I wanted. I won't be a part of it.

I agree, I've spent ENTIRELY too much on books to switch systems. I like pathfinder, not interested in a "streamlined" game. IF I was I would have tried out 5th edition already.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The third book is great IMO. Sanderson has said that he isn't looking to work with the level of realism/cynicism that GRRM does. He want's a lighter fantasy read. I've read all 3 when they came out, and been happy with the $ I've spent. I will agree the first book is a bit of a slog as he does SOOOOO much worldbuilding, but it pays off. He wanted to make something enormous and epic, and bring his own flavor of magic system/worldbuilding to it.

I can't wait for the next one.

Grand Lodge

Tallow wrote:
Daniel_Clark wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Daniel_Clark wrote:

I've had to pay for an atonement spell with one of my PC's. The character I was playing was petty, vengeful, underhanded, & bloodthirsty. Neutral, but just short of neutral evil. This is the kind of character I wanted to play, and I should accept the consequences of my actions.

Long story cut very short, I was playing 8-02: Ward Asunder. We entered their temple, and during a particularly hard fight Davryk (My character) threatened an opponent with beheading if he targeted him with Scorching Ray again. Well after the fight but before we left initiative my character walked over and cut his head in half. (didn't check to see if he was alive or not)

At the time it felt justified for the character, but that is an evil act. The combat is over, I don't have to walk over there and behead someone to make my point clear. With reflection I have 0 problems with the atonement requirement by the GM. Good people don't walk around slitting throats after a battle.

Aside from the discussion on whether that action would actually be an evil act or not...

Your GM can't have you make an atonement by simply doing one evil thing unless doing so would cause you to fall (Cleric or Paladin).

This falls into the "PFS rules are applied differently table to table" category. The tables I have played at all over western Washington this is a common threat. If your character is declared evil by the GM they are ineligible to be played again. This keeps newbies who like to murder hobo in line, and the common understanding is that the GM gets to make that call.

This was a Venture Lieutenant's table I was playing at, so for what it's worth sometimes the GM is overly strict with interpreting "evil" acts. (His argument is that one action would cause an alignment shift)

Like I've said I have no problem with the way things went down. I was having a lot of fun playing an a*!*@+# and wen't a little too far.

Sounds like you and the GM worked...

Thanks for the info, I'll keep this in mind for when I GM.

Grand Lodge

Tallow wrote:
Daniel_Clark wrote:

I've had to pay for an atonement spell with one of my PC's. The character I was playing was petty, vengeful, underhanded, & bloodthirsty. Neutral, but just short of neutral evil. This is the kind of character I wanted to play, and I should accept the consequences of my actions.

Long story cut very short, I was playing 8-02: Ward Asunder. We entered their temple, and during a particularly hard fight Davryk (My character) threatened an opponent with beheading if he targeted him with Scorching Ray again. Well after the fight but before we left initiative my character walked over and cut his head in half. (didn't check to see if he was alive or not)

At the time it felt justified for the character, but that is an evil act. The combat is over, I don't have to walk over there and behead someone to make my point clear. With reflection I have 0 problems with the atonement requirement by the GM. Good people don't walk around slitting throats after a battle.

Aside from the discussion on whether that action would actually be an evil act or not...

Your GM can't have you make an atonement by simply doing one evil thing unless doing so would cause you to fall (Cleric or Paladin).

This falls into the "PFS rules are applied differently table to table" category. The tables I have played at all over western Washington this is a common threat. If your character is declared evil by the GM they are ineligible to be played again. This keeps newbies who like to murder hobo in line, and the common understanding is that the GM gets to make that call.

This was a Venture Lieutenant's table I was playing at, so for what it's worth sometimes the GM is overly strict with interpreting "evil" acts. (His argument is that one action would cause an alignment shift)

Like I've said I have no problem with the way things went down. I was having a lot of fun playing an a#~&&!& and wen't a little too far.

Grand Lodge

I've had to pay for an atonement spell with one of my PC's. The character I was playing was petty, vengeful, underhanded, & bloodthirsty. Neutral, but just short of neutral evil. This is the kind of character I wanted to play, and I should accept the consequences of my actions.

Long story cut very short, I was playing 8-02: Ward Asunder. We entered their temple, and during a particularly hard fight Davryk (My character) threatened an opponent with beheading if he targeted him with Scorching Ray again. Well after the fight but before we left initiative my character walked over and cut his head in half. (didn't check to see if he was alive or not)

At the time it felt justified for the character, but that is an evil act. The combat is over, I don't have to walk over there and behead someone to make my point clear. With reflection I have 0 problems with the atonement requirement by the GM. Good people don't walk around slitting throats after a battle.

Grand Lodge

HWalsh wrote:

So... I enjoy PFS it has been really helpful to me...

That having been said, nothing is perfect...

The Good:
Thanks to online play I get to play a lot more, the wheelchair makes it hard to get around so I rely on online play most of the time. The discord server is great.

The Bad:
This may come down to area variation, but there have been players I don't want to play with ever again. On the discord, it is really simple, I keep a list of names and if they are in for the same game I am looking at, I don't sign up. Be it because they are rude (has happened) or simply because their playstyle and mine doesn't mesh well. In real life, this is harder to manage, and I gather I will just have to grin and bear it.

The Ugly:
Some of the PFS rules are... Silly. This comes down to certain items being made legal, but then the standard house rules of PFS make the item borderline useless. This one I ran into today, and while there is a cheaper alternative to get the same mechanical bonus... It begs the question of why make something legal if you, at the same time, make it impossible to use.

The bottom flaw can be remedied but it would take extra work on PFS's end for some kind of blanket errata on the item cost. (Something like, divide the cost by 10, or give such items a number of uses like we do with wands.)

Just wondering for myself, do you have a link to the discord server? I would love to do some online play.

Grand Lodge

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

The Spell Sage! One of the most interesting of all the wizard archetypes. It's challenging to play, but also incredibly rewarding, especially at higher levels.

This is a first draft of the first half of a Guide; I'll try to get the second half (covering some specific spells) up in the next day or two. Comments are extremely welcome! Once I've heard from y'all, I'll polish it up and submit it to Broken Zenith for the judgment of posterity.

** spoiler omitted **

...

Pretty cool man, I'm going to look into this further

Grand Lodge

rainzax wrote:
Tough crowd out here in Conversions... maybe I shoulda hung out at Homebrew?

I don't have anything to contribute, but just wanted to say hi. I'm going to look into this for myself, and wanted to say thanks for doing this legwork.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

You guys realize the moment Paizo comments publicly on any of these allegations that opens them up to libel suits right? Unless they can prove the allegations in a court of law if they were to accuse someone of something they are liable for the financial damage the allegation makes.

What they could do is issue a blanket statement to vendors and employees stating X behavior will not be tolerated, and not invite back any offending parties.

And when you have one employee accusing another, neither having proof of the allegation, how is a company supposed to respond? If they fire the accused they open themselves up to a lawsuit for wrongful termination. X employee made an allegation is not justified cause for termination, unless that was a clause in their employment contract. And even then it might not hold up in court. And i would sure as hell hope that I wouldn't be fired because 1 coworker accused me of something. Step back from the man/woman thing here. all people have rights, even those who are guilty. I don't want to live in a world where one person's testimony has that much power.

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how allegations now have to be read on twitter. Maybe I'm an idiot and can't figure that site out, but where is the substance of the allegations? All I am reading is he said she said. I have absolutely no idea if Robert or Jessica are lying, but i haven't read specific allegations either. Harassing a female customer is entirely too vague. Was he screaming at her calling her an idiot? Was he using sexual language in a threatening way? Was he physical with the person in question? Without listing details of what occurred im going to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty. All these accused might be scumbags, I'm not really arguing for them. I would just prefer that if I was in their place maybe others would reserve judgement until they have all the facts.

Grand Lodge

Perfect Tommy wrote:

Str 7

Dex 16
Con 14
Int 7
Wis 7
Cha 20

Human

Trait: Heirloom Weapon:Fauchard
Trait: Find your Kin?

1 Swash 1: TWF, Swash Finesse (Fight sword/dagger) HBFeat:Combat Ref
2 Phalanx Fighter1: Weapon Focus: Fauchard, Spear Dancing Style
3 PF2: Dodge, Mobility,
4 PF3: Armor Training, Combat Patrol
5 Pal1: Weapon Versatility?
6:Pal2: Divine Grace OR Oath Against Savagery
7???? SWash 2?

Idea: Fight Sword/Dagger Level 1.

At level 4, can fight with a buckler and treat the fauchard as 1 hnd weapon, applying dex instead of strength. Agile weapon allow dex instead of Str to dmg.

Level 5: Can use Spear Dancing style to treat it as Piercing & Light mace. Keen on the weapon would allow panache to be recharged. Weapon versatility would allow panache to be recharged on mace crits. Making the threat range 15-20 on the 1 handed fauchard and 17-20 on the off hand weapon.

Level 6 would either boost reach for combat patrol, or add charisma to saves (probably choosing that).

This would make saves at level 6: F:13 R:11 W:10;
With Swash 2, he could reroll saves with Charmed life...
HP - a little low, but would have the ability to swift lay on hands a ton.

Reach would obviously be beneficial. Ideas?
Weapon Versatility: Recharges on the mace off hand, and helps bypass DR. Is it worthwhile?

Future Feats: Continue the ITWF, GTWF? Fey Foundling? Osyluth Guile?(Charisma to AC)

Probably continue Paladin thereafter?

PFS legal, pls.

.

Don't give yourself 3 7's, even if it is for pfs.

Grand Lodge

Neal Litherland wrote:

So, I've been doing a "5 Tips" series of articles for the base classes, and this week I finally got around to fighters. If you think fighters should be more than suits of armor that occasionally roll initiative, or you know a player whom you wish to convince of that, these tips might just just what you've been seeking.

For those who go through the list, were there any that I missed? Do you have any good stories about flavorful fighters at your table who didn't sacrifice their role in the name of RP?

5 Tips For Playing Better Fighters

Great article Neal. I've been reading your blog over the last few months. Just wanted to say Thanks for sharing all your hard work.

Grand Lodge

Jason Wedel wrote:

I do not understand the dislike for the class...

I read comments like "One level of SB, 19 levels of anything else" or "Take 5 levels of SB and ditch it". I do not see why the dislike, compared to other martials, can someone Please explain this to me. It seems like the precision damage alone is a worthy bonus. I admit that I dislike the "charmed Life" ability, but I see a lot of decent to good abilities.

Maybe my issue is that I look at fighters as the "Base line" Martial class, and feel that Swashes are at least as good...

As a GM having only run a few scenarios in PFS with them, they slow the game down entirely too much with their counter abilities. I've seen other GM's simply not target them to make the combats run smoother.

Grand Lodge

Justin McKeon wrote:

It's easy to relate to the human race, and there's not much that prevents humans from becoming extremely powerful in this genre.

I think people would rather stick with what they know than risk botching the RP of a foreign mindset, munchkins excluded.

This is why when I started I played humans and half races exclusively.

Grand Lodge

Well that is rather lame. I have a level 9 viking that took the tribal scars feat 4 years ago when I made him.

Grand Lodge

With 7 I would even argue the APL is close to +2

Grand Lodge

We just encountered a Harpy with Ranger class levels in the third book of Shattered Star

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archmic wrote:

This is my last post:

Under the magic section of the CORE BOOK just above the section where it covers divine magic; Chapter 9 page 220 of the book I have under the Sorcerer and Bard section for adding spells it states this.

"Adding Spells to a Sorcerer's or Bard's Repertoire: A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time she attains a new level in her class and never gains spells any other way. When your sorcerer or bard gains a new level, consult Table: Bard Spells Known or Table: Sorcerer Spells Known to learn how many spells from the appropriate spell list she now knows. With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring."

I will point the very last line: "With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bard can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spell that they come across while adventuring."

EVERY spell NOT PRINTED in the Core Book is NEW compared to the spells printed in it as the rest of the books are NEWER than the CORE BOOK.

Following this line of thinking; one can assume that spells not in the CORE Book would fall under the "Unusual" spells that they would have to gain some study of to learn.

I never said that my player couldn't LEARN the spells, but he'd have to either encounter it or find something that would explain how the spell works; such as a scroll or spell book; to be able to learn it.

Note, I have supported my understanding of the rules via book; Core Book Chapter 3 page 22 and Core Book Chapter 9 page 220; and given where you can find this information and how I am drawing my conclusion to what I have read.

In conclusion, unless you can support that what I have concluded is wrong; by Developer post with link, Book Chapter and page reference, or Errata; I ask that you stop posting replies to what I have asked clarification on. Replies such as: "You showed him" and "You're wrong but I'm not going to post anything you can look at to prove it" aren't helpful,...

So glad I'm not playing in your game. You must be a pleasure to spend time with if EVERYONE here is disagreeing with you and you ignore everything they say because it's not a developer replying to you. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is that a developer will comment?

Grand Lodge

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Am I the only one to think that the show has taken a turn for the worse now that it is deviating from the book?

I seriously dislike Laura in the show. I wasn't fond of her in the book but she was at least somewhat sympathetic. Now I just want her to re-die.

I get what you mean. In the book we are given very little information into Laura and her backstory. We just know her focus the entire time in the book is SHADOW. In the show she is much more of a full character because we have all this more information ... but that just makes you hate her even more. It's easy to say Shadow is a naive putz, and Laura is a cheating slut. But those labels don't define who they are or what journey they are choosing to take now that tragedy has struck their lives. In the end it is sometimes our shortcomings that makes us human. We make mistakes, hurt ourselves and the ones we love. Then the next day, after the passion is gone, we see what we have done. It's what you choose at that point, that should define you. It's easy to walk away, it's much harder to try to fix yourself.

Grand Lodge

Gilfalas wrote:

I have a table rule for my game that states when the group levels up I won't ref another game until I have copies of their updated characters.

The reason I instituted this rule at the start of my game was 2 fold:

1) There are players in our group who never do it and will wait till game day to level up their characters. Though they have been playing for more than a decade our usual GM will help them on game day and sometimes the group sits there for hours waiting for one or two people to get leveled.

I personally feel if you have time for the game then you should make time out of game for some of the busy work so the whole table is not waiting during group play time. We only get to play maybe 2 times a month so table time is precious, especially as I only get to GM my game about every 6 weeks, the rest of the time our regular GM runs one of her games.

2) Those same players have almost no system mastery and are nearly constantly using wrong values, be it saves, BAB/attack values, spells, class abilities or what have you, almost universally to their detriment. I like to make sure the whole group is properly leveled and has their gear written down, etc so when we play we don't have to stop and question why the cleric is only rolling 2D6 on her channel at level 10 or why the Paladin saving throws are so bad when they have a 20 charisma, etc.

Note that I gave out a 3 page word doc of the home rules I was using and rules I was changing before characters were made or play started and this was listed in there and everyone agreed. But now I am waiting almost 2+ months for some of the players to get me their updated sheets.

When asked together and individually if they still want to play the game, all the players say they want to play and are having a great time.

Am I being unreasonable with this rule? Any suggestions on how to motivate people to send their sheets in a timely fashion?

You aren't wrong... but you are being ineffective. Obviously at this point even you agree that your system doesn't work. The problem players still haven't turned sheets in after 2 months and have no plans to. They are waiting for you to drop the issue.

If you have fun with these players and they aren't cheating (figuring values wrong to get a benefit) then I would drop it. If they are playing with under powered characters the party will call them on it. And if they don't all they care about is probably having a good time.

My advice is to stop worrying about it. As long as they aren't cheating it's not your problem.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Oh yes. Which will mean people stop working as engineers, nurses, doctors etc to pick berries. Less hassle, less responsibility and no student debts. Sounds good.

Did you know this is happening in Cuba? I saw a VOX news segment on youtube about an engineer working in a cab because the stipends the government is giving him don't cover his living expenses. So he has to do work on the side to be able to live. Its worth a view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mUZRP-fpo

Grand Lodge

You can flurry with both hands full I believe.

Grand Lodge

Bump

Grand Lodge

swoosh wrote:
Daniel_Clark wrote:
Ridiculous.
No moreso than insisting that any GM who might allow something permissive or powerful is "not in their right mind", though.

Fair enough, I did paint with a very broad brush with that reply. I personally couldn't see the benefit of allowing that interpretation in my game.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It makes me chuckle to see people read rules through the prism of their characters benefit, then argue about it in these forums. Nowhere in your wildest dreams would the FCB allow you 1/2 a use of a wizard power you don't have access to. That is so far off RAI that I never would have considered it myself, even if the language of the FCB is not written very well.

I really think these players need to GM for a year, if just to see the game from the other perspective. No GM in their right mind would allow that liberal of an interpretation of a FCB.

Also, why do you have to be faced with the evidence of another passage?
OP argued about this for a long time before agreeing with the opposition. It just screams power hungry PC to me. Unable to accept that THEIR interpretation of a passage is wrong. I had a friend who was CONVINCED that a magical enhancement for a weapon (like Keen =+1) only cost the bonus listed, not the total number for the weapon. Because he read the passage that way, it work the way he thought it did. bought 4 different enhancements at 2k each. Without even giving the weapon a +1 enhancement first. Didn't confirm his idea with the GM, didn't ask anyone. Just got called on it when he spent WAY more $ than his character should have been able to.

Why not read a passage like this with the narrowest viewpoint possible, rather than seeing what you can squeeze by with a broad interpretation of the language. Of course you can only affect a power you already posses. Why would you be able to acquire another school's power for the cost of two skill points?
Ridiculous.

Grand Lodge

wintersrage wrote:

I have a DM who allowed me to take the shadow creature template as a rogue who's race was dvati from the dragon compendium. At first he allowed the ability shadow blend work the way it is supposed to, then he would have the dungeon which was filled with illithids and drow, he had the place filled with daylight torches. Then when I attacked a guard whome I knew was in league with doppelganger who have infiltrated this city, this person was standing by a fire at night, he said I could not shadow dlend as the fire would not let it. This fire was nothing more that non magical bone fires.

He said after I brought up about the shadow blend ability should work, said he made a mistake letting me take the shadow creature template, so he with out telling me made the ability basically useless.

Then the next session I was 8th level and was traded in a cell and because I had 8 hit dice I took plane shift. So he killed my character because I escape the cells my character was in, the plane shift shifted me to the plane of shadow.

Instead of asking me to make a new character or taking me aside and asking me to remake my character with out the template. All he said was the ability was to Powerful and when I found was of getting out of the cells I was in he got angry and just killed my character.

How should I deal with this DM besides not playing.

He also allows the other players to do things they should not be able to do, like have 4 racial hit dice and 8 class levels and an ECL of +2 saying they are only 10th level jot 14th.

Any advice on how to deal with him.

Just quit the group. If you think the GM is picking on you and is unfair then don't stay in the game. It sounds like he is a nice guy (pushover) who said yes to you/others in the campaign when he should have told everyone no.

My advice would be to start a game where you let the players acquire all these templates and powers, then try to build an interesting story with unique challenges for said party. Once you see how hard, nearly impossible it is to challenge the overpowered party without killing them it will give you some sympathy for the GM who is being "unfair" to you.

Grand Lodge

Thanks guys.

Grand Lodge

Hi there, I just moved here from Washington and I would like to continue playing Pathfinder on a regular basis. I have been playing for 5 years and GM'ing for 3, so I can run is need be ore step aside if someone else prefers to run. I'm open on schedule, just dropping this thread to see what interest there is. Let me know if you are interested, and have a great day.

Dan

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
willburrrr2003 wrote:

Good Afternoon All!

I am a first time GM, and will be running my friends through the Module "The Dragon's Demand" I have read through the module several times to make sure I understand what will be going on and get a grasp on the module's dynamics. It seems to be very well written, but only for 4 characters. I will be running 6 though it, and don't see it being a major issue to change up encounters for 6 characters instead of 4. We will be using a wet erase map, so that I can draw out the areas for my players to move their minis around, and give added immersion for them into my game world. My supplies so far for GM'ing are The Dragon's Demand Module, Gamemastery Guide, Core Rulebook, Beastiary 1-3, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Advanced Players Guide, NPC Codex, and GM Screen. I also have normal graph paper, and 1 inch graph paper. I have been using the 1 inch graph paper to draw out the building layouts for the town, to allow my players to go into the buildings and see what's there as they interact with the town folk. I wanted these to be on scale graph paper so that I don't have to redraw the town buildings each time out of several that they will be going into the buildings. I also plan to flesh out some areas like the Large Wolf quest will have a map area drawn out for the encounter, the Grioth quest at the guys house will have a dedicated map area and encounter there as well. I will do this for content filler as needed, but don't plan on going overboard. I welcome any advice you have for a first time GM, so if you have any feel free to share!

Regards,

Will R. Everett, WA.

You seem well prepared, I wouldn't worry too much. My only advice would be don't let the game grind to a halt because there is a question about one rule. Don't be afraid to make a decision and move on, even if you find out later that it is the wrong decision. Keep the game moving forward. Nothing makes other players at the table more disinterested than the GM and 1 player arguing about the intricacies of a rule for twenty minutes.

You can always do other research and discussion away from the table. The players have input, but hopefully they understand the importance of everyone else's time as well.

Grand Lodge

Slothsy wrote:
I have this problem with my phone as well. My phone will load the homepage for a split second before going blank. If I go directly to any other page on the site, it loads fine.

I have had the same problem, intermittently.

Grand Lodge

Tineke Bolleman wrote:
As far as I know I have the only ratfolk in the country.

Jealous! I'd love to have a legal ratfolk.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Shaman

Occultist

Still not sure how to get an adventurer out of those classes.

Long rules arguments (an advantage to getting into the grarg on the rules forums is it lessons it on the table. My NO is good but my NO (technical reason i've reasearched and written before) is better.

I have a 4th level occultist, have him built to level 11. By far one of my funnest characters to play. Others usually view him as a fighter (chain shirt with a greatsword). I play mine as a support martial dolling out spells on occasion. This is the only class besides Psychic I would consider playing out of the Occult book actually.

Grand Lodge

I went in 2016, and had a great time overall. For what its worth though... I hated the special. I don't want to play an 8th level pregen of a class I don't know, having been handed the sheet 10 minutes before I start playing. I was the "leader" of my table and was frustrated to find everyone else at the table had their own goals and didn't want to cooperate. And this is tied to an existing characters pfs number, so if I die on this special I have to pay for a resurrection for my actual character. It was 5 hours of pure stress trying to get everyone to work together and solve the story. And there was not nearly enough time to finish the special, I saw plenty of tables nowhere near finishing at midnight. I would have felt much better playing my own character. Having done the specials in 2015 and 16, I don't care about the aspis consortium. Interesting idea on paper, but these pregens are complicated. We don't understand everything our characters can do, and are instructed by the module it seems to undermine each other. I can't stress how much I hated this experience, never again.

I had a great time in 2015 with 6-97 siege of serpents. Played my own level 10 cleric and had a great time with a table full of new people. I didn't enjoy 6-98 in 2015, or the special in 2016.

I still plan on going to paizocon this year, but if the special is with pregens again I won't be participating.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:

So, I'm going to stand up on a soap box for a moment, and talk about an issue very close to my heart. Some players may agree, others may not. However, I think that the goal of any player should be to build effective characters who can achieve their goals, and back-up their fluff and story with concrete rules.

At the same time, I do not believe that being creative when it comes to character story gives you a free pass on the mechanics. You are bound by the same rules as everyone else at the table, which is what stops the game from turning into a round of playground make-believe where you can conjure an everything-proof shield.

Claiming your character is "well-rounded" doesn't change the fact that we brought you along to help slay the dragon. If you can't hack it, say so up-front instead of explaining why you invested in Perform (Dance) and Run, instead of abilities that would assist the party in getting the job done.

For those who care to read more, You Don't Get Brownie Points For Building Ineffective Characters sums up the rest of my feelings on the subject.

*steps down from soap box*

I've read the blog post, which really isn't nearly as inflammatory as your post. Regardless of any other considerations, i wholeheartedly agree that understanding the mechanics and knowing how to use the resources available to you to achieve your goals is vital to every character. PC or Villain.

I have a serious problem with the notion that you shouldn't build to story. I don't care that I'm not "optimized". If I created a compelling reason to have the perform skill in my backstory, I'm not making a bad choice by putting a skill point in it every other level. If I don't spend any resources on my character's story then I am nothing but numbers. There isn't a "correct" way to use tactics on combat, or RP a low charisma, or anything else that makes your character you.

Bottom line is it isn't a wrong choice to use resources to justify a character concept. Without it I find I have an issue justifying my characters emotions and desires.

This is my main issue with PFS. Everyone is entirely too concerned with combat, and noone gives a Damn about RP. The barbarian in the blog post while optimized is fine by me because the player came up with an explanation and reason for the choices he made building the character. As a DM if i wanted to talk with his character through an NPC I could, Because there is substance there.
The cleric example wanted to play a concept, not a character. Regardless of his effectiveness in combat, I wouldn't want to play with him. He doesn't seem to have substance. Now let's say the character after adventuring for a month realizes he isn't a fighter, no matter how much he wants to be. In game that is when he takes the time to reflect and change tactics, or he spends the time/resources to retrain so he can achieve in combat what he wants to. Problem solved, and that is someone I would want to play with.

You dont have to hyper optimize, there is nothing wrong with a middle of the road character, or even a mediocre character. A good DM will find a chance for that player to shine, regardless of the numbers on the paper in front of you. All I care about is whether the player's character is an individual, or a concept. If all I am doing the entire session is worrying about combat I would rather play a video game.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been involved with pfs for close to 5 years, I've even been to paizocon twice. So i know it isn't just GM's "in my area". I've never seen a chronicle sheet filled out as you describe.
GM fills out the relevant portions that require their signature, hand it to the players and expect them to do the bookkeeping.
What's the problem? I know when I GM I have better things to do with my time then what you describe.

Now to discuss players "cheating" which I believe is the intent behind the rules you are quoting: If i think a player is playing beyond their ability or own items beyond their fame I ask them questions and audit them if i feel it is appropriate. Otherwise I should trust the players and respect the fact that they should be presumed honest. I know that is how I want to be treated when i play.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will be buying this for my home game, but I want to say a big thanks to getting rid of the APG Summoner from organized play. This was a severely OP class, it needed an adjustment.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One idea would be to limit the use of Mythic points beyond what the book allows. Base is 3 per day per tier. A GM could either limit that to 1, or instead of Mythic points replenishing at a days rest could restore them only after leveling. This would give the players fantastic abilities, but force them to think twice when using them. I think if it was my game I would choose the latter, that would make challenging the party that much easier while still allowing them to have moments of greatness.

Grand Lodge

Nohwear wrote:
I am playing around with ideas for a home brew game. I like the idea at least of Mythic, but I have heard bad things about it, especially at high mythic levels. If someone wanted to use Mythic, at what point would you stop increasing their mythic level?

I just played my first session with a mythic character and I was surprised at how broken it can be even without trying. Mythic Rage (selectable at tier 1) allows you to recover 1/4 your rage rounds for one mythic point as a free action, and all attacks this round bypass DR. Very easy to abuse as you can imagine. While it was fun as hell to play a mythic character, I imagine scaling the encounters to match the party will be very difficult over time. Each mythic path has a lot of imo broken features. Though I guess to be honest that is the entire point of playing a mythic character.