Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
So are you able to choose any neutral deity(chaotic neutral, lawful neutral) Or must they be true neutral?
I would recommend playing 3 more scenarios. Focus on 3-7 scenarios so at 6th you can play the higher tier. Then after 3 modules when you hit level 7 you guys can try the scenario "The Sealed Gate". I am confident you will find this module sufficiently challenging to the point of pure euphoria. 1-5 scenarios are meant to be more new player friendly.
There are currently no legal sign languages in PFS. Flail Snail and Drow Sign Language (Sakvroth) are the only defined sign languages in Pathfinder and neither is legal for PCs in PFS.
Under additional resources Ultimate Magic it states only the listed items were not legal for play. Monk vows were not listed as illegal. It clearly states in the text that monks may communicate with others using sign language under the Vow of Silence. It would seem the developers assume this to be a common language.
"Vow of Silence: The monk must speak no words and attempt to be quiet in his actions. Accidental noises and the sounds of battle (such as the sound of a fist or weapon striking an opponent) do not affect his vow, though most monks with this vow choose their weapons and opponents so as to minimize even these sounds. The monk is allowed to make a nonvocal noise to warn another of danger (such as by stomping or clapping). The monk is allowed to use gestures and motions to communicate with others (including sign language) and is allowed to write. A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for every 6 monk levels (minimum +1)."
If the vows are allowed then it would seem that sign language would be an accepted form of communication in the society as well as it is written in the text of the vow, and was not listed under the "not legal for play" list for the book.
chad riley 236 wrote:
this tech stuff is a fine marketing ploy, and thats fine. im sure it will be interesting for a few runs, but if im going to have it forced down my throat all season, well... okay im not going to stop playing, but it is going to get a bit tiresome. you got tech in my fantasy. if i want tech ill play something else where it makes some sense. anybody else feel his way?
I am not a big fan of tech in my fantasy either. I decided to keep an open mind, and tried scenarios 6-2 and 6-3 this past weekend at Dragon Con. I was pleasantly surprised with the fact that most of my objections have not come to fruition through the first group of scenarios at least.I didn't find the tech overdone or too over powered compared to the elements we already have in the game. I wasn't blown away, but i enjoyed both modules reasonably well.
I would recommend that everyone that has reservations to try to go into this season 6 without preconceived notions. If you do so I think most of you will be pleasantly surprised. If you decide going in that you will hate it...you probably will.
You cannot do so with a straight class inquisitor. You must take a level of cleric first then take the "channeling scourge" feat.
I have no reason to not accept a sound argument. I neither play a sorcerer that uses charm spells or utilize this tactic when DMing. Stating that someone didn't want to accept the obvious truth would indicate they have something to gain by not doing so. I have nothing to gain... Do you play a sorcerer that utilizes charm person/monster?
I believe many people are still confusing charm effects with compulsion effects. A poster earlier quoted the comparison straight from the core rules, but looked like his post was ignored.
I am not completely opposed to this idea, but I do see some issues. It could put a dm in an awkward position should they not want to sign the document. Many players will then expect the dm to explain why they do not feel they exemplify the spirit of their faith. As the dm tries to explain their reasoning the player gets defensive, and now you have at the least hurt feelings or at worst an argument that makes both players uncomfortable. In Living City there were many meta-organizations that were voluntary to join, but it worked because the prerequisites and qualifications were written into scenarios. It clearly stated in the scenario what actions had to be taken to receive credit to avoid table variation. I wish there was a meta campaign structure in pathfinder. However, that is another thread... Good idea, but tough to implement.
I agree with the last 2 posts of Diego Rossi. As Diego pointed out when designing encounters...stop putting 1 big bad in a combat, and then being upset when a party of six players kill it in one round. Use the environment to your advantage. Stop designing rooms that are barely large enough to fit in all the enemies much less all the party members, and then be surprised when the fighter with great cleave or the wizard with an empowered fireball clears the room. Many authors have no problem challenging players without making them face a Pit Fiend or an Ancient Dragon. For those that have run/played Rats of Round Mountain 1 and 2 I feel Kyle displayed that use of multiple enemies with advantages in darkness, or terrain advantages can challenge optimized paties without making it too tough for an average party that uses good teamwork. In addition, I feel some of the people posting on the boards take for granted that a vast majority of people in the society agree that optimized characters are "bad" for the society. This is a fantasy game, and I do not know too many people that fantasize about being average. The number of people that post regularly on this board represent a miniscule sampling of the entire society. Just because a majority of the people that post on these boards dislike this style of play does not mean that they are in the majority of the society. Just because someone optimizes their character does not mean they do not understand role playing, or that they are not solid role players. By the same token...just because your character is not optimized does not mean you are a good role player. The reason few people post differing opinions is that they know they will be attacked or flamed repeatedly and made out to be bully's or in favor of roll playing rather then role playing. That is why less then a hundred of the thousands of society members post here frequently. While I agree those that are optimized need to be careful not to monopolize every combat I feel that by the same token the opposing view could learn a bit more tolerance and acceptance of differing play styles. Let the flaming begin...
As many people that post on this forum seem to struggle with the correct usage of "a" and "an" I thought I would clarify. I am seriously not trying to insult anyone in particular, but it does distract me from taking some posts seriously. While someone may be able to point out some variant rule of grammar... this is going to correct 99% of the mistakes.
As a hard and fast rule "a" proceeds a word that starts with a consonant.
"An" proceeds a word that starts with a vowel.
That is all...thanks.
I would have to agree with NN 959 in regards to GMs imposing restrictions on the players that they do not impose on the NPCs they are playing. I do not especially like ooc table talk either, but it is no different then a GM running a group of NPCs and always healing at just the right moment, or coordinating attacks with no verbal discussions that pcs can use to their advantage. If you are going to enforce that type of table talk make sure you are adjudicating your NPCs the same way. In my experience GMs almost never do, and I have played under many 4 and 5 star GMs including a couple involved in this discussion. I. Do not believe any malicious intent is meant...I think that many GMs just do not think about it from that point of view.
I agree that dice apps should not be allowed with the exception of online play. Even if the app is 100% legit there will always be doubts, and suspicion of its authenticity. I always roll my attack and saving throw dice in the middle of the table in full sight of everyone wether I am playing or gming. In this manner their is no question that it was just random bad/good luck that may have caused someone's death or saved my characters life. Also it builds the anticipation level as the dice slowly rolls to a stop...the groans and cheers that result really adds to the entertainment level for the whole group. The exception to this is for certain skill checks like trap spotter. Obviously these dice rolls are better made in secret so other players are not tempted to ask to make a search check, because the trap spotter rolled poorly.
It clearly states "immune" in the spell description. That is about as black and white as it gets. Also the ruling has been made rather then someone seeking a ruling.
No, but that's what it's supposed to be. You know there's going to be someone who asks "What if there are only three players at a table? Do I get more money?" Just trying to head that off at the pass.
I understand what your saying here, but in the example I gave of comparing the 2 charts...it does make a difference. The gold earned is less then the challenge dictated. In addition, it still doesn't address the fact that the text charts take into consideration that you will have item creation which does halve the cost.For those that think that asking for appropriate compensation is just an excuse for more power gaming understand that when monster CR is calculated it is assumed that players of that level have not only the abilities, but the wealth to have better equipment to deal with the increased threat. It also assumes you will have a reasonably balanced party which rarely happens in a convention based system. This becomes even more important when dealing with "advanced" creatures like some included in some of the more deadly modules out there right now. Advancing creatures is broken in its current iteration. For those that have not faced these challenges yet be prepared. As this new season based around dealing with demons and devils kicks in full swing many eyes will be open. Many of this type of enemy requires weapons of +3 or better as well as spell like abilities that will require you to have extremely high saves and a lot of AC/hp to survive. This is not an inexpensive undertaking. Throw in a couple of PC deaths and you are too broke to be properly prepared. Not to mention by the time you are level 12 wouldn't you expect to have some money saved and some to spend? A day job at 25-100 gold a session doesn't keep me in the level of comfort I would expect after having been out risking my life on 33-40 quests.
Keep in mind this is a "Fantasy" game...anybody here fantasize about being broke all of the time in order to maintain survive ability?
Back to the original topic.
I would like to premise this with the statement that I am not asking for a change or criticizing the current system. I am just asking for clarification.
My question is...
With typical charts of this type it is assumed that parties have the ability to sell off items procured from enemies as well as "need before greed" allowing party members to gain an item they could not normally afford without having to purchase it. The typical gold allotments at the end of the scenarios does not normally seem to equate to the total value of all of the items that are listed on the chronicle sheet(yes I realize the values would normally be halved). Couple this with the fact that there is no item creation (halving the cost for items) which would normally be taken into consideration when developing such a chart.
With these things in mind I am not saying it has not been taken into consideration...I am only asking if they have been. My point being...if you refer to the chart in the Core texts I cannot imagine the society restrictions were taken into consideration for the chart. Kyle eluded to the fact that the chart was not the same as the one from core text. As I have not seen it I assume it is considerably higher then the core assumption?
Kyle Baird wrote:
When you are writing an adventure especially for living campaigns try making the early combat the most dangerous. Most meta-gaming groups will try to preserve their magic and combat resources assuming this to be the "obligatory thug attack". To avoid an anti-climatic ending utilize some devious traps or a very difficult puzzle to complete their quest rather then allowing them to run over it by sheer brute force and magic items. They willThink twice about holding back so they can cakewalk the big bad at the end after an experience like that.
In regards to groups coordinating their tactics, I think as long as they are speaking in character it should not be a problem. When military units go into battle they coordinate their tactics during a fight. Now in the extreme cases like the 5 minute discussion that was discussed earlier in the thread I would not tolerate either. Tactics Planning should be done before they are even in a fight. During combat short remarks that remind players of earlier plans are not only acceptable, but are signs of experienced players using good group tactics. As DMs we coordinate tactics with npcs all the time. We just do not have to do it out loud because we are controlling all of the enemies.
While I agree that their is a significant difference between 3.0 and 3.5 magic, I think 3.5 is more balanced. I loved playing a wizard in 3.0, but most of the other players at my tables didnt. Wizards were so overpowered with 2 wizards in our group we rarely needed any help from our fellow players. Haste was rhidiculous. 2 spells in a round not counting quickened spells is too powerful. At higher levels hour per level buff spells last all day and can last for most of 2 days with the extend feet or a lesser meta magic rod extend. At 17th level and above it wasnt hard to have DCs in the high 30s, but was much more difficult to reach similar save bonuses. Add that to armour classes in the high 40s or low 50s when buffed, and wizards were extremely more powerful then all other classes. While I enjoyed being hideously powerful in 3.0, I am pleased with my wizards power level in 3.5. I am still the most powerful and versatile player in my group as the wizard, but my comrades are much closer to my power level in 3.5. It makes the game much more enjoyable for all the players involved when it takes teamwork to acomplish your goals. Just my opinion.