John Lance's page

Yeah, trying to retroactively change how things have been done for the last two decades is going to be an interesting trick for Wizards. A couple of the youtubers I watch have mentioned that, under US law, you can't copyright game mechanics per se (using a D20, hitpoints, STR and DEX as a stat, etc....)

I have no idea if that is strictly accurate but if that's the case, it will make the position of companies like Paizo a lot stronger if this whole thing winds up in court.

I'm amused by the timing of that PBS hit-piece on the OSR community that just so happened to drop right in the middle of this growing OGL situation. WotC doing a little media battlefield prep, if I'm not mistaken. Wizards really must be worried about the optics of this whole thing if they're already thinking along those lines....

Just finished Book 3 of Serpent's Skull, now playing some 5E for a short break with one of the players GMing so I get a chance to play (I did play a mesmerist all the way through Strange Aeons as a break from GMing, but another break would definitely be welcome). The 5E will be home stuff set in the old Forgotten Realms, before they blew up the lore and the setting, should be a fun little detour.

"Yeah, this is a silly thread. If the OP wants to be taken seriously about this, maybe some willingness to defend their "Jewish people need to take one for the team here so I don't have to change my vocabulary" take would help."

I'm trying to think if there could be a less charitable interpretation of my original post and I'm coming up blank. My original post was simply stating that, for me, I've been having trouble figuring out what is going on with Paizo (and Wizards of the Coast as well) when it comes to changes, modifications, etc.. Believe me, my fellow VOs and I used to lobby for all kinds of changes back in the day, especially when new material came out, and it was usually in vain. Understandably so, in some cases, Paizo had a lot on their plate back then (and still do, from all accounts) and you have to have priorities. So anytime I see a change in any system I play, I usually have the reaction of either "Oh yeah, that's been an issue for a while, glad they finally got around to it" or "Why did they spend time and effort changing that? What that really a priority?" For me, the soul cage change was more of the latter. It does provide some clarity in the differences between items but I can think of a dozen changes or clarifications that would make more creative and mechanical sense.

That's it, that was the reasoning behind my original post. The change makes some sense, but is so far down on the list of things I think need modification that I never saw it coming. Plus, since I'm a first edition diehard, it'll never be an issue for me or my home game. It just struck me as an unusual choice, nothing more than that.

... I gotta admit, I never saw this one coming.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/pathfinder-paizo-phylactery-lich-soul-cag es/

I'm currently prepping this for our Grand Lodge tomorrow and I'm fascinated by the parallels between one of the sub-plots of this scenario (naval corruption in Taldor) and a current-day scandal (the investigations into high-ranking officers in the US Navy and their connections to a shady contractor named "Fat" Leonard). Was this intentional or was this merely a coincidence?

....then folks, do I have a link for you. Memorial Day weekend, 2018, in beautiful Black Mountain, NC. Start stockpiling those resurrection and breath of life scrolls while you can....

http://www.seekerpalooza.com

Cultist's Kiss is (without getting into spoilers) very "Ravenloft" in terms of atmosphere, adversaries, plot, etc... It is higher level (7-11) and very challenging, but one of my favorites in the PFS library.

Tickets just went on sale for Asheville Scarefest 2017. Hosted at Montreat College in the Blue Ridge Mountain, Scarefest is everything you've ever wanted in a Con. PFS is the lion's share of the scheduled games, include one, possibly two, Specials (as well as weekend long modules run by some of the 4- and 5-star GMs from the Appalachian Pathfinder Lodge.)

This is the same venue that hosted Scarefest 2015 and 2016, and you'll be hard-pressed to find a better place to play Pathfinder and any other RPG and boardgame you can think of.

So head over to the website and check it out. See you there!

http://avlscarefest.com/

Wow. People are asking 130 bucks for used combat pads on Ebay and other sites. I mean, I love my combat pad, use it all the time, but c'mon, 130 dollars? I'm definitely purchasing a back-up when they get more on the shelves....

I've run Midnight Mirror a couple of times for our PFS lodge here in Asheville and I learned a couple of things:

1) Warn the group that they need to keep things moving i.e. don't get too wrapped up in RP or overly curious about the bigger "sandbox". You probably have a time limit, so don't let things get stagnant.

2) Make up an introduction that uses a VC or other type of PFS leader to give the group a mission brief, just like any numbered scenario. I shamelessly copied a mission brief from the GM Discussion thread that used Varian Jeggare and Radovan from the Dave Gross novels.

3) Don't be afraid to give them some nudging to keep things progressing in the right direction if they seem to be unsure what to do or where to go next. Have NPCs jump in and help get the adventure back on track if necessary.

Having said all that, I really enjoy running modules for PFS credit. Besides Midnight Mirror, I was also lucky enough to run a group through the entire Plunder & Peril module as last year's Scarefest here in western NC. It took half of Friday and all day Saturday and part of Saturday night, but it was a lot of fun, I highly recommend it for any GM's that might be getting a little bored with just doing the 3 to 4 hour scenario thing.

Good luck and let us know how it goes!

Whether it's playing with all the former service guys and gals here in Asheville or sitting at a table with five soldiers from Fort McPherson at GenCon 2015, I've always enjoyed seeing the healthy number of veterans who participate in this awesome hobby. Makes me feel like less of an oddball :-)

So have a well-deserved drink or two (even if it is just a Diet Coke) and roll some dice this weekend in whatever game you have going on, you all earned it.

Take care and see you at the next scenario!

I don't think there is any deliberate cheating, just min/maxing and a little hastiness in checking out the Additional Resources and forums. As for no one noticing, he built the shadowdancer using a bunch of credit from running PFS-sanctioned modules, so I was probably one of the first GMs to see it in action. Not really his fault, he just made what he thought was a cool character and wanted to see how it stacked up against "normal" PFS classes and archetypes. I completely understand that aspect of it, but it seems like I'm constantly running into these kinds of situations these days, where I almost want to stop the game and do an audit to make sure my scenario will even present a challenge, but don't because I realize that would kill the fun everyone is having. And I really, really don't want to do that.

The guy with the shadowdancer is a good player and I really enjoy having him at my tables, but like some other good pathfinders in our lodge, he can't just play a well-built character, everything about it has to be right on the line of PFS legality. It can't just be a shadowdancer, it has to be a completely munchkin'd-out half-drow shadowdancer with deeper darkness and the see in darkness universal monster ability.

And it isn't just him. Another similar guy in one of my games was playing a human barbarian. Problem was, he had found something in the splatbook "Humans of Golarion" that gave him the idea that he could build a Feral Gnasher barbarian archetype from the goblin section of the Advanced Race Guide. So he gave his "half-goblin" human a 1d6 bite attack (from the hard head, big teeth alt racial trait) and was excited about getting the Lockjaw grab ability at 3rd level. He was basically playing a goblin barbarian archetype...as a human.

I finally had to point out the Additional Resource ARG blurb that made this all a no-go for PFS ("Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race"). He was kind of bummed out about being told "No, sorry, that isn't PFS legal" but what was I supposed to do? He's a really great guy and a good player and GM, just like the guy with the shadowdancer, but all that stuff is reserved for people that are lucky enough to get a racial boon, that's why they have that sentence in the Additional Resources. If he really wants a goblin feral gnasher, there are lots of ways to play one around here. With all the home games of PF going on in this area, there are plenty of opportunities to play non-PFS classes and races, hell, we even do that with the PFS-sanctioned modules we run all the time.

If the two guys I'm referring to read this, I hope they don't take it the wrong way and think I'm slamming them in public. I salute their creativity and I really do enjoy playing with both of them. But the scenarios have to present some kind of a challenge and if everyone starts building these ridiculous characters that I can't handle because I'm running the scenario "as written" and my hands are tied, then what's the whole point of organized play? The new players who don't have the time or knowledge to create these kind of characters are just going to quit playing because they'll feel like they contribute nothing to the scenarios and are just "along for the ride". Some GMs will stop GMing because they'll feel like every scenario is a cake-walk with zero chance of the characters getting hurt, much less killed, as they one-shot everything in the game on their way to a one or two round domination of the BBEG.

Sorry for the long, rambling post, but more than anything, I just wanted to explain why I may be coming across as "that guy", the one who always has to rain on someone's parade when they come up with some new, exciting character to play in PFS. I'm not trying to be a kill-joy, just trying to keep some kind of balance between the players and the scenarios in terms of lethality and challenge. Believe me, I enjoy playing weird classes and races as much as anyone, I just do it in the "non-PFS" Pathfinder games that happen outside (and sometimes inside) organized play.

As someone who recently typed something rude in a post and then subsequently apologized when this was pointed out to me by one of the developers, I think that the Paizo staff actually does a pretty good job of policing the message boards, especially with regards to rules, errata, and all the other tricky things that people have strong opinions about. I've been very impressed by the mods in the threads I've read over the last few years and I've sometimes wondered if they ever feel unappreciated. Constantly telling people they need to cool it or act more maturely can't be a pleasant way to spend a day and I'm sure they would be the first ones to celebrate if everyone agreed to communicate with some dignity and restraint on their website.

But since A) A lot of folks have to be absolutely right and win every argument on the internet and B) An equally large number of people never want to apologize for anything, ever, there will always be a need for bans, time-outs, admonishments and all the other tools used to keep things on a message board under control. Even nice people with a happy disposition can slip up and say things they really don't mean, and that applies a thousand-fold for the internet.

So I hope that whatever changes are made (if any) will encourage everyone to be just a bit more kind when dealing with their fellow RPGers, since I believe that there are way more things for us to agree on than to fight over....

There is an issue of "critical mass" that can have a big impact on how many tables you can reliably schedule and play each week. Once you get that magic number of motivated, dependable players and GMs that a regular schedule can be built around, most of your problems go away.

For small lodges, getting to that magic number (which I have no idea on what it might be. 6? 10? Anyone got a better guess than that?) is a lot harder. Just having one or two people move away or have "real world" issues can really ham-string a small table-top community (I've already seen that happen to some of the other table-top groups here in western NC). Some of it you just have to chalk up to good luck or serendipity. That's pretty much how I got involved in PFS, I moved to the right town and there was an operating PFS Lodge just waiting for someone like me to stumble upon them.....

Well, here is the basis for my "anything that would effect a physical body goes away" theory. This isn't perfect reasoning, by any means, just my take on the simplest fix for the problems I've seen in just one game.

From the Pathfinder Reference Guide:

"Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms."

Also:

"Incorporeal creatures cannot fall or take falling damage."

Those quotes are straight out of the Universal Monster Rules. If the phantom steps out over a pit while incorporeal, does it fall? No? Then it keeps walking across to the other side. Is the poison afflicting the ectoplasmic phantom magical? No? Then it stops harming the phantom as soon as it switches to "ghost" mode. Same for disease or anything else that isn't covered in the above blurb. The phantom might have to stay incorporeal until the poison runs its course or a remove disease spell can be cast, but that's the simplest and most straight-forward fix to the issue (again, IMHO).

Since I can point back to something that is Rules As Written (RAW) and I play a lot of PFS, that's my interpretation until someone from the design or development team says otherwise (in which case, I go with whatever they say). I could totally be off-base with my interpretation, but that's the best I've come up with so far....

As for non-evil undead, one of my favorite NPCs in a recent Pathfinder AP (minor spoilers) is an undead incorporeal creature (a ghost) that used to be a cleric of Iomedae. The ghost has a Lawful Neutral alignment, has four levels of cleric and can channel positive energy to heal mortals (such as the players).

So the idea of non-evil incorporeal undead has been used by Pathfinder fairly recently and in a really cool way....

By the way, it has been pointed out to me (and rightfully so) that some of my comments may have come off as offensive or insulting to the design team, especially with regards to the editing, writing of sub-types, etc...

I apologize for my tone, that was uncalled for and was unfair to the people that worked hard to come up with this new material. I will definitely be more diligent and professional from now on.

I realize that it is very easy, especially in the internet age, to snipe at the people who actually have to get things published and out the door. I actually sat in the Occult Adventures seminar that James Jacobs and the gang did at GENCON last year and I immediately ran downstairs and bought a copy, that was how excited I was after hearing their thoughts. So don't think I don't appreciate how hard everyone worked on the Spiritualist, among other things. I'm just chiming in with my two cents to see if something really cool can be made even cooler (and easier to use in PFS, where RAW rules the roost, so to speak).

Not to sound like a smart-ass (but I'm sure I will), it's a little strange to use this phrasing...

"Something looking like it was cut and pasted from somewhere else = language that is precise and consistent"

... when the Advanced Class Guide I have sitting on my desk next to my laptop plainly says "Pathfinder: Adventure Path" right on the front cover in big letters. Sometimes a cut-and-paste job saves you a bunch of time, sometimes it just makes you look sloppy and in a hurry.

Now, me being a smart-ass aside, I do have a lot of sympathy for the technical writers at Paizo. Five years ago, one of my additional duties was writing syllabi for a USAF program that trained foreign advisors on U.S. and foreign helicopters. Cut-and-pasting was fast and simple and I was short on time. But that also meant that I had to do a lot of editing, and farm out a lot of proof-reading to my colleagues (when they could lend a hand) because a lot of the errors just blended into the background and I couldn't catch them. In some instances, something that made sense when describing a maneuver in a UH-1N would make very little sense at all if cut-and-pasted into the syllabus for an Mi-17. In other cases, it was no problem at all and saved me all kinds of times.

I have the feeling that the same thing happened when cut-and-pasting text for a phantom from an eidolon. This sentence from the Summoner chapter makes sense to copy and use - "An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon." - except for the fact that this earlier appearing sentence in the Spiritualist chapter - "Fully manifested phantoms can wear armor and use items (though not wield weapons) appropriate to their forms" - is in direct conflict with the first. No problem, Paizo issues corrective guidance at the first opportunity.

So Paizo did the right thing and put out a line in the FAQ fixing that particular conflict in the text. But there are some other things that need to be addressed as well if players using phantoms are to avoid the kinds of problems I ran into with mine. Most of them had no impact on the game being played, but some of them could have had a decisive effect on certain fights and situations.

If I had to put my finger on the biggest one, it would be classifying the phantom as an Outsider with the Phantom sub-type because, as the conversation probably went, "Sure, eidolons are outsiders, but phantoms sound much more like undead. However, undead would be overpowered, so outsiders it is." The sub-type entry could have been used to clear up some of the obvious issues, (a kind-of dead former humanoid made out of ectoplasm has to breath and catches diseases?) but unfortunately, the sub-type has one sentence that contains no useful information. On top of the type and sub-type confusion, you have the fact that phantoms and swap back and forth between being material (aka ectoplasmic) and incorporeal, another tricky sub-type all it's own. Finally, you have the fact that a phantom can be confined in a spiritualist's consciousness, a state that is neither banished (sent back "home" to the the Ethereal Plane) or having even the limited state of an incorporeal creature, it's just sitting there in the spiritualist's mind.

All of those things suggest that the phantom sub-type needs some fleshing out (no pun intended) with definitive language that allows no interpretation or wiggle-room ("phantoms are immune to poison and disease but can be stunned or paralyzed when in ectoplasmic form" for instance). That would seem to be the simplest solution but I'm aware that just because it seems simple rarely means that it actually is....

Okay, poison and disease "works" on the phantom while ectoplasmic. Then I shift my phantom into incorporeal form. Does the disease stay there? Does the poison still work? What if it's a Strength draining poison, incorporeal beings don't have a STR score. How about if I pull it back into my consciousness? Does the phantom stay poisoned and/or diseased?

Again, an FAQ is needed. I have a feeling they just cut and pasted a lot of stuff from eidolons, but phantoms are not just like eidolons, they have forms that make things much different (for instance, phantoms in ectoplasmic form can walk through a stone wall. Because ectoplasm. But poison and disease would still work on them and travel with them, through the wall, or something).

Best fix: Get rid of that useless sentence under the phantom sub-type and really sit down and define what that sub-type means. That would be the way I would go, but who knows what will actually happen....

I will have to add that the two Pre-Gen specials (We Be Kobolds and We Be Aspis) were outstanding, I highly recommend them both. I played the Bard in the True Dragons special, love it, would definitely recommend that character for anyone. For the Aspis special, I lucked out and got 322. I'll say no more about her, but if you get the chance, play 322 in that Special, you won't be disappointed.

I agree with the moderator, people need to take some deep breaths (including the fine folks at GEN CON) and think about what is really going on with this law and the history behind its crafting. There is a lot less here than people are assuming.

Being a PFS rules lawyer, I figured I better read the laws driving this brouhaha. For the record, Indiana SB 101 is a cut-and-paste copy of the federal RFRA legislation that was sponsored by Chuck Shumer (D-NY) and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1993. The federal statute was driven by a number of cases, including the punishment of Native Americans who were using peyote and mescaline in religious ceremonies. However, the federal RFPA can't be used to enforce or overturn state law. Therefore, 19 other states have passed similar laws since then so that their state laws mirror the federal law with respect to religion (this includes Rhode Island and Connecticut, by the way). I highly recommend everyone taking 5 minutes to read the federal law and the state law that IA just passed. They're practically identical (and very short, each one runs about three pages, double-spaced):

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

This state law means that, just like federal law, the state of Indiana must have a compelling reason for placing a burden on someone's practice of religion. That's it. This whole controversy is an internet mountain conjured from a legal mole-hill.

Believe me, if I thought this was some unjust state law that threatened current legal protections for any group of Americans, I would be the first one to blast it in public. This is not that big of a deal, it truly isn't. Definitely not worth relocating a convention for.

I really wish GENCON had waited before throwing the gauntlet down over this, because I think people are going to be underwhelmed when they actually sit down and read the law and the history behind it.

My apologies if my post adds fuel to the fire (totally not my intent), but I've been increasingly surprised by how upset a lot of people have been getting over something so...irrelevant to gaming, I suppose. I think a lot of folks are unhappy over having real world politics dragged into a part of their lives that they really wish to stay politics-free and just wish the whole thing would die away. I know I do....

I just wanted to say that I had an awesome time at SCARAB, that was my first "Away" game, to use a sports analogy, and it was something I would recommend for anyone without hesitation. Big thank-you to Donald Kidd for GMing a whole raft of scenarios for me, including the three Thornkeeps that I played in. I also had a really good time in the Legacy of the Stonelords special. We had an great table (well, the GM was OK, I suppose -- just kidding Luth, you did an awesome job, especially with the "Exhausted" condition....)

The SCARAB folks put on an excellent event and I'm looking forward to next year's SCARAB, hopefully with some GMing thrown in for good measure on my part.

A big thanks to Neil, Jim and everyone else that had a hand in writing this AP, I've thoroughly enjoyed the short time I've GMed this AP (my first, it so happens). Also, a huge thank you to bwatford for his maps, I need to send some money his way, those maps are a godsend.

I'm running a really experienced group of five PFS players through this AP and I've had to ratchet up the difficulty of the encounters to keep it challenging. The group consists of a Half-Orc Paladin of Erastil, an Ulfen Hunter/Witch hybrid (homebrew class, the player is a 4-star GM), a Snow Goblin Falconer (Ranger archetype), a Vanaras Heavens Shaman and a Human (Garundi) Gunslinger. The group had a close call with the hunting lodge (Rohkar resurrected four zombies downstairs before anyone detected his presence), but since then, they've handled the doll and the moss troll fight with no real issues.

So, I decided last night to give them a real challenge. The Hunter/Witch and Ranger had used wild empathy/handle animal to entice two giant arctic weasels to follow them to the portal (I added a weasel for difficulty, but they rolled really well on wild empathy checks, so the weasels followed them for food). Once at the portal, the weasels got curious and were "accidentally" sent through first. To provide a real challenge, I decided to have the group step out the portal on the Irrisen side and see their two weasels being attacked by a pack of wolves.

Well, I overdid it with the wolves. I had the weasels being attacked by 8 (yes, I know, but hey, I thought, they're only medium sized animals...) timber wolves with the boreal template. The weasels were quickly shredded, however, and my small band of 2nd level players faced 7 boreal timber wolves (CR 3, according to the AP booklet). After a truly epic battle (and lots of luck and me allowing players to give other players their "bennie" for the session), the party actually killed all the wolves with no one dying. A couple of guys came damn close, but I was spared the agony of killing someone with clumsy GMing.

So I've learned my lesson. Challenging good parties is good, but I'm definitely going to pay more attention to the CR ratings in the future. At least the party got a ton of XP and a truly cinematic introduction to Irrisen in that debacle....

Here is a quote from historian William Wilson's "The Lone Samurai" that summarizes my attitude towards specialization (especially with the martial classes):

"...As Musashi himself had learned first-hand in his more than sixty bouts and six major military engagements, the martial artist must be practical: partiality towards (or bias against) one weapon or another is anathema, as is one-sidedness of any kind. On the one hand, he urged the student to wield the weapon that would be "fitting to his own abilities." On the other, he stressed the need to be ambidextrous and the advantages of being able to use two swords at once. The fundamental point of the martial arts, he declared, is to win: "Your real intent should be not to die with weapons uselessly worn at your side." (pg. 153-154)

Miyamoto Musashi was a legendary swordsman who urged his readers in "The Book of Five Rings" to avoid the trap of over-specialization. He himself made a point of learning something about all weapons and styles, including unarmed combat and throwing weapons. He was also a celebrated artist and poet and was infamous for the various psychological ploys that he used to put his opponents at a disadvantage. Far from the ultra-focused "sword saint" who knew one--and only one--thing, Musashi was a flexible and innovative warrior who understood the best ways to prepare for the unpredictable nature of warfare, whether in a duel or in the middle of a huge battle.

In some ways, I suppose, Pathfinder has become more and more a table-top version of the MMOs that have generated mountains of money for video game companies. Even the terms "theorycrafting" and "DPR" are recent imports. With their minutely scrutinized, endlessly replayable fights and battles, MMOs demand hyper-specialization merely to meet certain benchmarks. While there are certainly some guidelines for what you need for certain levels of scenarios/modules, proper table top RPGs, on the other hand, have that element of the unknown that has all but disappeared from computer MMOs. Will the party face water combat? aerial combat? Poison, disease, swarms, blizzards, quicksand,etc, etc....? You would hope that a party of specialists would be fine in all situations, but I've seen a lot of highly optimized PFS parties become almost frantic when faced by situations that they utterly failed to anticipate, much less prepare for. By all means, be good at something, but don't put on a pair of blinders and pour all your energy into that one "thing", whatever it may be.

I'm getting ready to run a crew through "Reign of Winter" and my advice to them has been "be prepared for anything". If they show up with four or five Ifrit sorcerers loaded with fire spells, expecting the entire AP to be nothing but a bunch of ice trolls and white dragons, they are in for some nasty surprises....

My apologies for the wall of text, but this subject has been on my mind quite a bit for the last month or so.

My apologies for resurrecting a semi-deceased thread (and a big hello to Nick G from Knoxville, I'm going to try and attend Save vs. Hunger next month.)

For some reason, a lot of the above problems seem to involve barbarians (I'm sure this topic has been beat to death, but bear with me.) Have I completely missed something about barbarians and how they are depicted in fiction over the last three decades? Starting with Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Robert Howard's Conan and continuing up to the present day, I have read some extremely entertaining and nuanced depictions of barbarians and how they interact with the "non-barbaric" world. Barbarians have been a staple of the swords-and-sorcery genre for a long time and I used to think that everyone understood how they had been portrayed.

Unfortunately, I have recently run into more than my share of folks who seem to equate barbarians with "must destroy everything that looks breakable." That isn't "barbaric," that's flat-out criminal (and possibly evil.) A little of this can be entertaining (in small doses), but it seems to have become the default for a lot of PFS folks. When you question their irrational behavior (and I do mean irrational. When one barbarian in a recent PFS scenario ran out of attack options due to lack of ranged weapons, he told me that he was just going to Intimidate a nearby wall), they immediately fall back on that laziest of excuses: "Hey, I'm just doing what my character would do!"

I have toyed with banning that phrase at my tables. Trying to hide behind an imaginary person who only exists on a piece of paper seems fairly childish to me. If you try to do something dumb and get called out on it, just defend the decision or walk it back, but don't hide behind the PFS version of "the devil made me do it". Otherwise, when I have the character kicked out of Pathfinder Society, I can just say "Hey, it's not my fault, I'm just doing what the Venture-Captains would do." That door swings both ways.

Which brings me back to barbarians. I have yet to roll up a barbarian and play one, but I would like to think I would play him with some style, wit and a little bit of humor, not staggering around trying to Intimidate and Power Attack everything in sight. I'm sure other classes have their challenges with lazy RPs and people trying to act out some sociopathic fantasy, but it really seems like barbarians as a class are getting ruined by this trend.

What are other people seeing? Good, solid PFS sessions with well-played barbarians or just more boring versions of the Incredible Hulk?

I'd just like to give a big thanks to Adam for GMing for us tonight, he did a great job. Kudos on running a mission on really short notice!

Hey everyone, thanks for the monster PF session tonight, I had a great time. The cake was pretty good too! Also, big thank you to the staff of the WT and the GMs, you guys did a helluva job.

John "Snag" Lance

Hey everyone! I stopped by Wyvern's Tale the other day and they said to contact you guys if I was interested in Pathfinder. Let me know what I need to do and I'll be happy to oblige. Thanks!

John Lance
Sylva, NC