Griffon

Griffin Rider's page

Organized Play Member. 23 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Organized Play characters.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seamus_Muadhen23 wrote:
Goodbye Nick! You have been a great Venture Captain and grown the game tremendously, promoted the sale of Paizo products vigorously and your presence as VC will be missed now that you have resigned.

Indeed Nick is sorely missed. I came back from holiday hiatus (retail manager) to find a community that went from 5-6 tables at the main venue every week and 3 satellites running a couple tables each to what looks like trouble forming 2 tables at the main venue. Sad state of affairs. Good luck in your future endeavors Nick Green and Felix Adam.


Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Ultimate Magic wrote:
Forbidden Rites: A separatist selects one domain from her deity's domain list, and a second domain that is not on her deity's domain list. This second domain cannot be an alignment domain that doesn't match the cleric's or her deity's alignment.

If you read that, the only restriction for the second domain is for alignment domains. The whole idea for the separatist is that they have weird beliefs that don't match up with the main beliefs of the deity. For example, a separatist cleric of Abadar could have the Destruction domain and believe that cites should be destroyed and rebuilt on a continual basis to support a belief of architectural evolution.

Also notice, that there is no restriction that says "cleric domain". Just that the domain is not on the deity's domain list. But your problem lies with:

Ultimate Magic, Druid section under Spellcasters chapter wrote:
Other nature-themed classes with access to domains may select an animal or terrain domain in place of a regular domain.

While nature-themed class is never defined, druid and ranger definitely fit. Hunter and shaman are most likely included. Some archetypes make a class nature themed or a make a nature themed class not anymore. I personally would go so far to include any cleric that worships a nature themed deity, one with animal, plant or a portfolio that has a nature theme (e.g. Cernunnos, Fandara, Gozreh, Valani). But then again, that is a personal preference.

You could always worship Gogunta! Be hard to argue that frog is not an appropriate domain for that one...

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.


Dylos wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A for advancing creatures. The advancing rules are seriously broken, and have been since the beginning of 3.5. It is much too easy to remove the weaknesses from a creature with a very small impact on CR.


Nick Greene wrote:

Please join me in welcoming Felix Adam as the new Venture Lieutenant for Knoxville, Tennessee. Felix has been instrumental in helping ensure games get run in the Knoxville area, and at the end of the day, that's what we're all about.

Congratulations, Felix!

Congrats Felix!


This may have been asked before, but couldnt find a definitive answer. If you are playing an Inquisitor/cleric with negative channeling can you take versatile channel to channel postive energy also?


talast wrote:

does anyone know if there is a version of the inquisitor that can channel energy?

and if yes, please be kind enough to provide the source and if possible, the page number?

thanks

You cannot do so with a straight class inquisitor. You must take a level of cleric first then take the "channeling scourge" feat.


Del,
Can you post a link to the war horn for Conooga? The only sign up I can find is active for judges only. Maybe I have an out dated link?


Del,
Did you mean Conooga 2014? If so when will players be able to sign up for events? The con is only 3 weeks from today. I also hear you negotiated a heated room this year:) Thanks a ton for that!


Sitri wrote:

This isn't a new argument and I have already spent more time with it than I planned. If you don't believe in the idea of free will, rather you think our decisions are the sum of our experiences and processing ability, the difference between charm and compulsion becomes negligible; definitely not a good reason to ignore written rules. As to the power metric, I have spoken to that a little here as well; also not a new argument and also not out of line with how certain other individual spells can outshine others under certain given circumstances.

I know that I personally don't find the arguments of "been there done that" very compelling, but perhaps it does offer insight into why some things seem to have been glossed over. The only compelling argument in this thread for the "just superfriends" position is that Jason has stated in the past that he is not a "rules guy" and he is more of a "creative guy." But in light of the fact that his words were part of the FAQ and they are the only ones we have to go on as far as explanations for this spell goes, the "true rules guys" seem to support his position, which is very clear in my opinion. I honestly think the only reason someone could argue that what he said wasn't clear is because they didn't want to accept it.

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.
For those that need more convincing read the section dealing with spell creation in Ultimate Magic. If charm person is changed to a compulsion with a mere charisma check it becomes more powerful then any other 1st level spell out there. When creating a spell the "Golden Rule" according to Ultimate Magic is "Compare your spell to similar spells, and to other spells of its intended level."
It goes on to state that when designing a spell the "hierarchy of power" must always be taken into account. The most powerful of these is "spells that allow you to control an opponent" Next it gives specific list of what are considered "benchmark" spells that you should compare to the spell. It lists them by spell level. At first level the spells magic missile and burning hands are the benchmark. If charm person is run as a compulsion with a mere charisma check it is extremely more powerful then either of those benchmark spells. In the list of 3rd level spells it lists "suggestion" with the following statement " Suggestion: This is the lowest-level spell in which the caster is able to compel the target to act, yet the spell's control is still limited to “reasonable actions.”
If you read the complete text you will find that duration is also a determination of power level for a spell and an hour per level duration is very high. Unless I am mistaken Jason was the lead designer of Ultimate Magic. Read the entire passage and I think you will come to the conclusion that this spell was never intended to be as powerful as this interpretation being presented here.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
" The previous poster just told a joke."

"An" proceeds a word that starts with a vowel.
" The previous poster just shared an anecdote."

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.


Drogon wrote:

If it's a vote, put me in the "no" group. It's called Protection from Evil, not Immunity to Evil.

It seems, however, that a black and white ruling is sought that will allow this 1st level spell to trump any and all higher level spells that step on its proverbial toes. Is that really what John said? I'd be pretty disappointed if that were the case.

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.


Drogon wrote:
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...
Is the fact that you must purchase every item you have taken into account when determining the wealth charts Kyle and a few others referred too?

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:
Thea Peters wrote:
I would have to giggle at some of the meta-gamers then .. and would so sign up with run every mod like that...
Rebel's Ransom is kind of like that with the throne room. I've had parties waste their last haste or blessings of fervor only to open the door and be sorely disapointed.

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 will

Think 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.
Steve