Funky Badger's page

Dude already admitted to it, didn't he?

Wait, the dick pics are off-topic?

OK, I think I know what you're after now, though I think a +5 to avoid being snuck up on (eyes of the eagle) is pretty universably applicable.

Warrior-types who hate being scared might like the headband of unshakeable resolve. 3/day immediate action to reduce a fear effect on you, and the item also carries a +2 Wis bonus so it doesn't interfere with the big six too badly.

A ring of evasion does what it says on the tin.

The bastion crown helps with death effects and tricky rogues.

Ring of Evasion is a trap: "Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor."

A second edition.

Vigilantes, lol. Waste of paper.

Or just trawl through the boons page which seems to list all the chronicle boons for adventures I haven't played...

but it runs counter to how the devs of previous editions and this one intend low level consumables to be used

Oh noes, people having wrong fun.

Will "they" be publishing a dev's guide on how to play this new edition (or any previous ones)?

The whole reason it exists in the playtest is because the Paizo devs, who go to conventions and see a lot of PFS being played, don't like CLW wand spamming. They think the people who do that are playing the game wrong, so they've crafted a ham-fisted "fix" that causes other problems (read: healing in general, a well-recognized problem with the current playtest). This "problem" has much better solutions on the wand side of the equation that don't break other parts of the game.

This is a great example of how "problems" in PFS can have a huge effect on those of us that play home games.

-Skeld

The problem in this example are the Devs, not the PFS players.

Having a limit on consumable magic items its a positive.

That's an assertation. I've yet to see the proof.

I strongly disagree that Resonance serves no purpose. IMO there is a definite problem with spammable low level consumables ie wands and potions etc in 3.P.

What's the problem?

Get rid of it. Its a solution to no known problem.

If you absolutely have to have it, don't tie it to a specific stat. Have it either purely level dependant, or level + primary stat.

You can't just play PF2 just like it were PF1 and expect to be successful with the same strategies.

Dunno where people would have got the idea they were similar, really.

Cheap unlimited healing for everyone is going away, and it needs to,

Why is this?

Does it improve the game?

Frankly, folks that want to be able to grab whatever and cobble a character together by nabbing any ability from here and there are probably better served by playing GURPS anyways.

So, taking away features from one edition to the next, and if you don't like it, there's the door?

Sparkling strategy.

Just finished playtesting parts 1 & 2 over a weekend. Thoughts below, mostly on the first experience of P2, rather than specifics about the adventures themselves (although thew were both fun - comments below notwithstanding).

The good:

-3 action combat sytem is excellent. Engaging and quick with enough scope for tactical choices.

-having said that, there are still a few nit-picky annoyances, the rules for putting both hands onto a 2-handed weapon are annoying, and seem needless given 2H isn't particularly better than 1H anymore.

-magic isn't quite as flexible as we were led to believe in the trails (but its still cool). Also cantrips are very nice, and its seems a lot easier to get critically spell results (or crit save failures) than combabt crits.

The ugly:

-lockpicking mechanics are a waste of time, building up (and losing) a bank of successes to overcome the difficulty is an unfun time sink. Especially since there are so few ways to assist a roll

-skills seems much less well defined than in P1, nobody seems to know which is used for which, this just adds to feeling of dissociation

-character creation options are neat within the very limited boundaries. Gating combat options behind classes seems like a terrible choice. Some things you can no longer do: play a longbow wielding ranger, sneak attack with a longsword, power attack as a barbarian.

The bad:

-resonance is just rubbish. I don't see the issue this is trying to fix. Why put a limit on magic item use in a high-magic setting? And if you absolutely have to, why tie it one particular stat? Surely class + primary stat modifier would be more balanced?

-secret rolls are nonsense. Immersion breaking, pointless and heaping more work on the GM. I will literaly (again) never run a game using these rules, and most likely never play in one. BURN THEM WITH FIRE.

-exploration mode seems like a badly thought out excuse for railroading. And self-contradictory from the start (not good design). Casting a spell for more than 10 minutes at a time is fatiguing. Except for Detect Magic, when it isn't. Even though Detect Magic takes *literally* twice as much effort to cast as Shield. Why?

-dying rules are clunky in the extreme. I think with removal of the unconscious condition, or the save to remove it (make it an action to become conscious when on 1+ hp?) these could work. Although given they seem to exist to stop characters getting critted into oblivion, why does the massive damage rule exist - its only point sems to be criting first or second level characters directly to death?

-detect magic. Please put it back to how it was. Its tedious nonsense now. Unfun in the extreme. It could take days to find the magic coin in the treasure chest - why?

I know that's fairly negative, but I'm concerned that the really good combat and magic chassis is drowning under the weight of badly thought-out pointless bolt-ons.

If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.

1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.

Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.

The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.

Is Drake Brimstone your real name?

Want to make sure I never get stuck on a table with you.

Totally well deserved :-)

Let me try a build:

Human
20 pb- Str 18, dex 10, con 14, int 10, wis 10, cha 14
Bloodrager 1 (arcane bloodline) fey foundling, power attack
Bloodrager 2
Bloodrager 3 furious focus
Bloodrager 4
Bloodrager 5 weapon focus or toughness
Bloodrager 6 improved initiative
Bloodrager 7 vital strike
Bloodrager 8
Paladin 1 (sacred servant) furious focus
Paladin 2
Paladin 3 improved vital strike or greater mercy

Always wanted to be a barbarian and paladin (since maenad is not an available race) and use furious focus. Bloodrager gets enlarge person for the extra damage for vital strike and you can rage cycle using fatigue mercy. I like fey foundling as the more hp (and less AC) you have the more healing drain to the cleric you are. Feats are up to your own liking, but I like the idea of furious focus rage cycling with the added healing.

Level 20 would be bloodrager +3, paladin +5, maybe oracle 1 for lame curse to be immune to fatigue and use greater mercy to better effect. At bloodrager 11 you get the upgraded rage and paladin 8 gets 4d6+8 lay on hands. Additional feats would be raging vitality and maybe more of the vital strike feats.

You haven't got Raging Vitality, therefore you die shortly after reaching fifth level.

:-(

Evocation's by far the most mundane of schools.

And if I wanted to play a mundane character I'd play a fighter. Or a sorceror.

Considering roleplayers, I'm not feeling the prevalence of low social stats is a stretch.

Tanglefoot bags and thunder stones are both useful items. The best use for a thunder stone is as a readied action against a spellcaster.

The best use of a Thunderstone is as a last gasp defense against Harpies.

Do that a few times and the player will correct themselves or level that character out of the society.

And almost certainly won't bother gaming the same bunch of jerks again.

Synthesist should have been able to solo it with a following wind.

I just see it as a good way to get through the weak areas certain builds may have like lower levels until a PRC or multiclass build comes into it's own.

Aaaah, you mean easy mode.

Gotcha.

As a player, I never say how many HPs I'm on once unconscious.

While a PC is concious, he's more than able to should "Medic!!!"

BigNorseWolf wrote:

This is closer to munchkinism for taking advantage of an unclear or contradictory rule

Hi, I think it is poor form to blame players for things like this.

It is pretty insulting overall!

Who else to blame for the player making a cheesy/dishonest/sketchy choice like that?

Once again, thanks for making a good faith post. Psychologically, though, I can't say this is compelling. My RL job provides me with way more than the Society and they never expect me to pay for things specific to the job out of my own pocket. Everywhere I've worked, if I take an employee out to lunch to show appreciation, the company reimburses me. None of these jobs require that I risk my life.

I suppose you could always go to work next time there's a gaming session on instead...?

Whether as an employee or a volunteer, no organization expects its members to spend money out of their own pocket when conducting the entity's business.

Maybe not in your world.

My personal approach to the problem is to try and create characters around motivations that fit well with the PFS. Whatever PFS is providing them has to be more interesting than just money or levels.

Building a character that fits within the setting.

Unless the chimp is also a ranger, right?

so lead blade would affect my AC via share spells if it had "carried weapons"?

Yes.

If it was say:
-a chimp with a pickaxe
-a raven gripping a tiny lance between its talons
-a spider-monkey with a kukri

And if it isn't, why isn't it?

But the argument that "under the effect of a confusion spell" would itself prompt the save is simply a load of BS.

Oh you charmer. You missed out "in my opinion".

Decline of Glory is mostly outdoors and totally wonderfully.

Its got the Force descriptor, so yeah, why not.

Further to that: what's the first thing that happens to a PC "under the effects of a confusion spell" - Will Save.

According to the player at my table, a creature hit by a Confusion bomb directly is confused without a save. While I disagree with this interpretation, I also cannot disprove it.

If you're running the game, you don't have to.

In fact, I said that new problems were created. I even agreed with you that this is bad law. Please don't focus in on two words out of my post and ignore the rest.

Not that I think this instance is much of an issue, but the rationale behind the decision making is worrying.

(Apologies for misreading your post and over-snarking)

Shinobikazuma wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

1st level

burning disarm: a disarmed bad guy is a MUCH less dangerous bad guy

You'll need the appropriate source book for this spell to be legal. And I'd recommend preparing a single CLW in case of emergency.

Or, you can play with a DM who doesn't care that you don't have the book since you are not made of money. If you are in a group that only has 3 players then you can just refuse to play, hence making it so the game cannot proceed unless you are able to use your character as built with supplements you do not have.

Or, in this hypothetical, you could stop being a dick.

Funky Badger wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

It's a bed that players who chronically play up made. Now everyone gets to lie in it.

Hard cases make bad law.

Bad, but simple. It's the same principle as "If you two kids can't stop fighting over that video game, then no one gets it." Frankly, I think that campaign leadership has more important things to do than argue about people who chronically play up and therefore throw the WBL curve out of whack. So, they took away the choice. Problem solved. Another problem created? Maybe, but the abuse which some people felt was egregious is no longer going to be a problem.

Problem solved. Yup, jerk players continue to be jerks, everyone else has to suffer under new rules.

Yay! But at least its simple.

Command can be a game changer. but ther very least you should do (or rather the very least I try to do when playing my cleric) is cast guidance each round... (Divine Sub-domain for Divine Vessel power is awesome).

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Nobody had brought alternate characters except for me (and everyone wanted to play their own characters)

This is not the fault of the subtier system.

Yes, it is. Not everyone has a pile of dead bards worth of alternate characters. Some people are working on their first character.

The new rules are too restrictive and take away player choice.

It's a bed that players who chronically play up made. Now everyone gets to lie in it.

Hard cases make bad law.

Guidance
Guidance
Guidance
Guidance
Guidance

Funky Badger wrote:

Klaus van der Kroft wrote:

Chemical/Biological weapons are comparatively easy to manufacture and incredibly destructive, requiring very little in the way of technical capacity.

This is absolutely not the case, a breif glance at history shows this.

History doesn't help you here. They're a pain to DEVELOP but once you have them using them is pretty cheap.

Awesome battlefield weapons, until the wind changes. They had far more psychological impact in the first world war than "practical"* - and still do.

*meaning actual dead bodies.

Chemical/Biological weapons are comparatively easy to manufacture and incredibly destructive, requiring very little in the way of technical capacity.

This is absolutely not the case, a breif glance at history shows this.

Because conventional war is a game we can't loose. You can't invade the US with planes tanks and automobiles. You can;t resist a us invasion with planes tanks and automobiles. As long as war is planes tanks and automobiles we can't loose and we can't even be seriously hurt.

If they start using chemical weapons on each other, it won't be long till they start using them on us. They want to nip it in the bud before it gets to that point, and I think Assad deserves a daisy cutter to the head anyway.

Interesting, I'd not thought of it in those terms.

If you think we have some ulterior motive here I'm listening. I don't see a play that gets us the nice stable friendly dictator of our choosing here, so whats our real motive with this?

I'm not part of "our", my chosen representatives have already decided - wisely I believe - that the case for military intervention hasn't yet been made.

As for motive? War boners?

Funky Badger wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I think we're passing the point of reasonable doubt here. Yes. The potential for abuse of chemical weapons is insane. Discouraging Asaad and the next generation of Asaads from doing it again is worth the cost of a few missles that we've already bought anyway.

Estimated number of humans killed during the Syrian civil war: 100,000

Estimated number killed by Chemical Weapons: 1000

Intervening in Syria because they've used the wrong kind of weapons to kill 1% of their victims seems obtuse in the extreme.

Chemical weapons allow for

-A higher death toll
-A faster death toll
-A less discriminant way of killing
-A cheaper death toll
-More death than you can afford with other means.

We're intervening so that the numbers don't become 100,000 by conventional weaponry and 200,000 by chemical. Nothing obtuse about it.

Aside from being more indsicriminate, none of your listed reasons are actually true.

Chemical weapons are very fiddly to make, diffult to store and use and very tricksy in the field. All of which make them expensive. If you absolutely want a value for money when it comes to killing, pick a machete (cf: Rwanda) or pick an AK-47.

So why are we against "chemical weapons" - by this I mean pretty much poison gas, rather than the more acceptable White Phospour, Napalm and depleted uranium?

I think we're passing the point of reasonable doubt here. Yes. The potential for abuse of chemical weapons is insane. Discouraging Asaad and the next generation of Asaads from doing it again is worth the cost of a few missles that we've already bought anyway.

Estimated number of humans killed during the Syrian civil war: 100,000

Intervening in Syria because they've used the wrong kind of weapons to kill 1% of their victims seems obtuse in the extreme.

It's horrible. GMs shouldn't do it! Even if it's the slightest thing, it can result in player death and they could potentially have a bad experience.

Character death.

Frankly, it's akin to theft - a PC has time investment, which has actual dollar value. A 5th level PC (which could potentially die unrecoverably), for example, represents 48-60 hours of playtime alone: valued according to average US wages (about $25/hour), that PC is worth $1200-$1500, not even including development time.

Heh. That's funny.

:-)

Which is why most PrCs suck for spellcasters to be honest. Same as 3.5, you almost always want the full casting progression and anything less is a bit on the lame side of things, with an occasional 9/10 sneaking in.

Yet people persist in playing sorcerors and oracles.

I dun get it.