MadScientistWorking's page

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro 1,200 posts (1,656 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 36 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

For now
Strength: 18
Dexterity: 8
Constitution: 1d10 + 7 ⇒ (6) + 7 = 13
Intelligence: 1d10 + 7 ⇒ (5) + 7 = 12
Wisdom: 1d10 + 7 ⇒ (1) + 7 = 8
Charisma: 1d10 + 7 ⇒ (4) + 7 = 11

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Jason S wrote:

If the above argument isn't enough to show how un-fun Infamy is, I don't know what is.

Well the fundamental problem is that infamy as a concept only works when the organization isn't narratively and ethically evil like the Pathfinder Society is. Even in it's supposedly neutral state it's still really evil.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Ferious Thune wrote:


You are saying that the examples from within the scenarios disagree with that reading. And that's fine. If that's true, then include examples from scenarios with the rule. Give at least one example of what a callously criminal act is and isn't. Pathfinder doesn't do this enough, and it leads to all kinds of issues. Again, I don't understand why this would be viewed as something that should not be done.

Biting Ants has the Venture Captain tell you not commit acts of genocide. Its the scenario I really hope you weren't referring to as you are able to complete it with wanton murderer but..... you are objectively and even from the briefing a wanton murderer.

Quote:
Pathfinder doesn't do this enough, and it leads to all kinds of issues

Pathfinder is a game line which has in its history tried to justify torture and mind control as inherently good..... Im not sure if relying on them is such a good idea.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Ferious Thune wrote:
Adam Yakaboski wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:

Ok, it sounds like infamy is really just the don’t commit evil acts rule, but with two or three strikes instead of one. That’s very different than what I took it for from the blog, which was more like negative fame.

To use vague references to a recent season scenario, you can complete it either by talking your way through it, befriending a creature, and building up the societies reputation. Or, you can complete it by killing everyone you encounter. Both technically complete the mission, but one earns a negative boon.

Actually if its the scenario I'm thinking of then the GM is entirely within the right to alignment infraction you if you kill everything you encounter.

Edit:
It's probably not the one I'm thinking of as you can't complete it killing everyone in the scenario.
Even if it is, my point wasn’t that the GM couldn’t cite an alignment infraction. But alignment infractions are used sparingly. Infamy is being presented as something that should be used more frequently. My point was that presenting that situation without clarifying whether it should earn infamy is inviting table variation that alters the scenario in a large way. Some groups would be allowed to complete it with no diplomacy and no penalty, and other groups might fail the mission because they couldn’t diplomacize and they don’t want infamy. And failing a mission is actually cheaper than taking the point of infamy. EDIT: my valuation of prestige was off. Factoring in gold it is worse to fail the mission.

I mean the issue is that the scenario I'm thinking of if I were to legitimately not be beholden to PFS rules I probably would flip the parties alignment directly to evil if they did that.

Edit:
To clarify it suspiciously sounds like you described a scenario that you can engage in what the literal definition of a genocide is.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Ferious Thune wrote:

Ok, it sounds like infamy is really just the don’t commit evil acts rule, but with two or three strikes instead of one. That’s very different than what I took it for from the blog, which was more like negative fame.

To use vague references to a recent season scenario, you can complete it either by talking your way through it, befriending a creature, and building up the societies reputation. Or, you can complete it by killing everyone you encounter. Both technically complete the mission, but one earns a negative boon.

Actually if its the scenario I'm thinking of then the GM is entirely within the right to alignment infraction you if you kill everything you encounter.

Edit:
It's probably not the one I'm thinking of as you can't complete it killing everyone in the scenario.


Lets roll to see what I get
4d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 3, 1) = 12
4d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 4, 5) = 16
4d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 2, 3) = 13
4d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 4, 1) = 15
4d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 5, 2) = 14
4d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 6, 5) = 18
4d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 6, 6) = 21
The stats appear to be 18, 17, 14, 14, 14, 11.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Slyme wrote:
Catfolk being so limited is something I don't understand...mechanically they really are not a very strong race, certainly no more powerful than some of the core or featured races.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
its not a matter of power . For catfolk its just that they really don't have a big/well known presence in golarion, so an entire (swarm? herd?) of catfolk in the society wouldn't make much sense.
Does it make sense that there are "swarms" of ifrit, kitsune, nagaji, oread, sylph, tengu, undine, or wayang? I don't really see much narrative cannon to indicate that any of those races exist on Golarion in any more meaningful numbers than catfolk, aasimar, or tieflings yet the latter three are restricted.

Yes actually it does. Wayangs are really the only oddish race in that regard but all the other ones have had massive plot reasons why as to why they exist in large droves.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:
While on the flip side, you get things like the core summoner...which I don't understand how it even made it to print it is so powerful

1) The build a bear aspects of the eidolon were intended to have a DM overseeing and approving the build which... isn't really an option in organized play.

2) the spell list was a print error, but its not like you can ban the entire class from pfs and still expect people to buy the brand new book

The eidolon and spells were never the issue though. It was always the sheer amount of ridiculously goofy and oddball things you could do with summoning and summoning alone which did not change between class revisions. Paizo actively made that aspect even more over powered as time went on. Hell even PFS overseeing the Unchained Eidolon has resulted in wonky stuff.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

SCPRedMage wrote:


But that's off-topic here; the question this thread is asking is "what does 'ethnic groups' in the Affinity rules cover?"

It's not. Those races are actively called out as having ethnicities whereas the others aren't. Any other example just falls under being really really really creepy and RAW against the refluffing rules. And yes NPCs do have tactics against specific ethnicities.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

SCPRedMage wrote:


That said, half-elves, half-orcs, and aasimar with Scion of Humanity are only said to count as human (and elf/orc/outsider, but that's not relevant here), and kitsunes can count as human with the Human Guise feat, but nothing ever says they can count as a specific ethnicity for prerequisites, so while this is certainly a super-reasonable house rule, I don't think you can actually do it in PFS.

Aasimar are a weird case for plot reasons but the other three have specific racial traits which actively call them out as being other ethnicities than a generic half orc, half elf, and kitsune. Its why all my friendly cinnamon bun half orcs are technically Osirion.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

SCPRedMage wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sczarni crime family wouldn't be an ethnicity its an affiliation

That's exactly my point; I believe "ethnic group" covers things like memberships in tribes or other organizations, but it's been claimed (by a VO no less) that "ethnic groups" includes the full-blown ethnicities like Varisian or Shoanti, as listed in the ISWG (pages 12-23).

I disagree strenuously, but those supporting the claim continue to say "ethnic group" is just a synonym for "ethnicity", and that you thus use a regional affinity to claim that ethnicity and qualify for prerequisites as such. To my reading, you could only come to that conclusion by completely disregarding the clarifying examples of "a Shoanti tribe or Mammoth Lord following", which clearly illustrates what the phrase is supposed to cover.

The problem with their argument is that its actively called out in multiple places of additional resources that its human ethnicity. I think technically you could still get the trait if your human, half-elf, half-orc, and kitsune but other than that its a no-go.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Which is how we get to "I'd rather not play in an organized play group with players who are arguing in favor of slavery, torture, and rape", I guess.

Yeah I agree with you. I just changed thought process mid statement because your argument reminded of legal material (Alignment Elixir) that is called out as torture yet is strangely legal??? and good????. Why????

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:


I'm honestly not trying to make trouble here. This post is just confusing to me personally (and, in some cases, kinda squicky).

Its not really that confusing as it is stated in the fluff that there is a relatively large number of people who have every right to find the good gods evil and are angry at them. And that's not even getting into the weird good???? stuff that is PFS legal that is described as zealous slavery or mind control.


Here is Rose's complete sheet. I made a few changes to her racial abilities. I feel like Overlooked Mastermind is a better fit for her friendly nature. As I said earlier she is a Sarenrae worshiper. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Spoiler:

Rose
Half Orc Amnesiac Psychic 1 Sarenrae Worshiper
Init: 2 Senses: Perception: +6
Defenses
AC: 15 Touch:12 FF: 13
HP 9/9 Fort:2 Reflex:2 Will:4
Offense
Speed: 30 ft
Melee: Dagger -1 (1d4-1 19-20/x2);
Ranged: None
Psychic Spells Known (CL 1; concentration +5)
1st 4/day- Bless, Magic Missile, Mind Thrust I (DC 15)
Oth At will- Detect Magic, Grave Words, Light, Telekinetic Projectile
Statistics
Str 8(-1) Dex 14 14 (+2) Con 14 (+2) Int 18 (+4) Wis 14(+2) Cha 12 (+1)
BAB +0 CMB-1 CMD 11
Skills: Craft(Alchemy): +8; Diplomacy: +8; Knowledge (planes): +8; Knowledge (religion) +8; Linguistics: +8; Profession (Barkeep) +6; Perception: +6; Sense Motive: +8; Spellcraft: +8;
Spell Abilities
Feats:
Expanded Phrenic Pool
Specials
Phrenic Pool: 4
Repressed Memories
Psychic Discipline: Faith
Phrenic Amplifications: Will of the Dead
Racial: Overlooked Mastermind, Skilled
Traits: Armor Expert, Subject of Study(Demon)


GM CyberMephit wrote:
@MadScientist - I see you went for the Faith discipline but I don't see which deity Rose worships?

Sarenrae. I figure Rose will joke about possibly being a horrible monster but the possibility of that being the truth pushes her towards redemption


So I'm going to make a psychic named Rose. She's a half orc that doesn't remember anything about her life. She was discovered after a battle in the Worldwound wearing the uniform for the crusaders. Unfortunately, after a extensive search of records there was no sign that she ever existed let alone fought. Eventually, she turned for the Professor to help her cope with her situation. News of his death hit her particularly hard as she was finally coming to terms with her situation running a small tavern.

Build wise I'm obviously going to go with the amnesiac psychic. Her background is vague just because well she doesn't remember much. This build is incomplete but for the most part more or less done.

Spoiler:

ROSE

CR 1/2

Female Half-Orc psychic 1

LG medium humanoid (orc, human)

Init +2; Senses Perception +6,
Languages Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Giant, Gnoll, Goblin, Orc
AC 12, touch 12, flat-footed 10

hp 9 (1HD)

Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +4
Speed 30 ft. (6 squares)

Face 5 ft. Reach 5 ft.

Base Atk +0; CMB -1; CMD 11

Abilities Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 14, Cha 12

Special Qualities Deity, Divine Energy, Faith, Intimidating, Knacks, Orc Blood, Orc Ferocity, Phrenic Amplifications, Phrenic Pool, Psychic Discipline (Ex or Sp), Repressed Memories, Skilled, Spell Recollection, Spells, Spells, Weapon and Armor Proficiency, Weapon Familiarity, Will of the Dead,

Feats Expanded Phrenic Pool

Skills Acrobatics +2, Appraise +4, Bluff +1, Climb -1, Craft (Untrained) +4, Diplomacy +5, Disguise +1, Escape Artist +2, Fly +2, Heal +2, Intimidate +7, Knowledge (Planes) +8, Knowledge (Religion) +8, Linguistics(Abyssal) +8, Perception +6, Perform (Untrained) +1, Ride +2, Sense Motive +2, Spellcraft +8, Stealth +2, Survival +2, Swim -1,

Possessions

Bonus Spells

Deity (Ex) At 1st level, choose a deity to worship. Your alignment must remain within one step of your deity's or you lose access to all this discipline's bonus spells and discipline powers.

Divine Energy You can channel spell energy into cure or inf lict spells. This ability functions similarly to the cleric's ability to spontaneously cast cure or inf lict spells, and the type of spells you can convert depends on your alignment in the same way. The cure or inf lict spells don't count as being on your psychic spell list for the purposes of any other effects. Each day, you can convert up to one spell from each spell level you can cast. Each time you use this ability to convert a spell, you regain 1 point in your phrenic pool. The maximum number of points you can regain in this way per day is equal to your Wisdom modifier.

Faith Your belief in a higher power fuels your psychic abilities. Whether your mental abilities truly come to you as a divine gift or are simply enhanced by the power of your belief, none can say. In many ways, you resemble a divine caster, and prayers often factor into your casting of psychic spells. Phrenic Pool Ability: Wisdom. Discipline Powers: Your powers serve to protect or cure you and your allies.

Fate's Favored The fates watch over you. Whenever you are under the effect of a luck bonus of any kind, that bonus increases by 1.

Intimidating (Ex) Half-orc receive a +2 racial bonus on Intimidate skill checks due to their fearsome nature.
Knacks Psychics learn a number of knacks, or 0-level spells, as noted on Table 1-8. These spells are cast like any other spell, but they don't consume any slots and can be used again. Knacks cast using other spell slots (due to metamagic feats, for example) consume spell slots as normal.

Orc Blood (Ex) Half-orc count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.

Orc Ferocity (Ex) 1/day, when a half-orc is brought below 0 hit points, but not killed, he can fight on for one more round as if disabled. At the end of his next turn, unless brought to above 0 hit points, he immediately falls unconscious and begins dying.

Phrenic Amplifications A psychic develops particular techniques to empower her spellcasting, called phrenic amplifications. The psychic can activate a phrenic amplification only while casting a spell using psychic magic, and the amplification modifies either the spell's effects or the process of casting it. The spell being cast is called the linked spell. The psychic can activate only one amplification each time she casts a spell, and doing so is part of the action used to cast the spell. She can use any amplification she knows with any psychic spell, unless the amplification's description states that it can be linked only to certain types of spells. A psychic learns one phrenic amplification at 1st level, selected from the list below. At 3rd level and every 4 levels thereafter, the psychic learns a new phrenic amplification. A phrenic amplification can't be selected more than once. Once a phrenic amplification has been selected, it can't be changed. Phrenic amplifications require the psychic to expend 1 or more points from her phrenic pool to function.

Phrenic Pool (Su) A psychic has a pool of supernatural mental energy that she can draw upon to manipulate psychic spells as she casts them. The maximum number of points in a psychic's phrenic pool is 2. The phrenic pool is replenished each morning after 8 hours of rest or meditation; these hours don't need to be consecutive. The psychic might be able to recharge points in her phrenic pool in additional circumstances dictated by her psychic discipline. Points gained in excess of the pool's maximum are lost.

Psychic Discipline (Ex or Sp) Each psychic accesses and improves her mental powers through a particular method, such as rigorous study or attaining a particular mental state. This is called her psychic discipline. She gains additional spells known based on her selected discipline. The choice of discipline must be made at 1st level; once made, it can't be changed. Each psychic discipline gives the psychic a number of discipline powers (at 1st, 5th, and 13th levels), and grants her additional spells known. In addition, the discipline determines which ability score the psychic uses for her phrenic pool and phrenic amplifications abilities. The DC of a saving throw against a psychic discipline ability equals 10 + 1/2 the psychic's level + the psychic's Intelligence modifier. At 1st level, a psychic learns an additional spell determined by her discipline. She learns another additional spell at 4th level and every 2 levels thereafter, until learning the final one at 18th level. These spells are in addition to the number of spells given on Table 1-8. Spells learned from a discipline can't be exchanged for different spells at higher levels. Specific psychic disciplines are further described starting on page 64.

Repressed Memories All the amnesiac's older memories have been deeply hidden, as though she had been affected by multiple repress memory* spells. She isn't prevented from remembering things that happen over the course of a game, but might be forgetful. If the amnesiac's memories are ever restored, she loses this archetype and reverts to a standard psychic.

Skilled Second- and third-generation half-orcs often favor their human heritage more than their orc heritage. Half-orcs with this trait gain 1 additional skill rank per level.

Spell Recollection (Ex) Once per hour as a swift action, an amnesiac can attempt to remember any spell from the psychic spell list of her choice from either of the 2 highest spell levels she can cast. When she does, she rolls on Table 2-1: Spell Recollection to determine the result. Because the mental stress of combat brings memories to the surface more easily, the amnesiac adds 1d10 to this roll's result if she's in combat when she attempts to recall a spell. Regardless of the result, the amnesiac expends an amnesia slot of the appropriate level for the spell she is attempting to remember; she must cast the spell remembered (if any) using that amnesia slot during the same round, or the spell slot is lost without effect. Once a spell has been remembered in this way, the amnesiac can cast it as one of her spells known for the rest of the day (even if she failed to cast the spell during the round in which she remembered it), unless spell recollection allowed her to cast a spell of a higher level than she would normally be able to cast.

Spells An amnesiac's ability to cast psychic spells is the same as that of the psychic class, with the following exceptions. An amnesiac's faulty memory makes remembering and casting spells difficult, but the increased flexibility can be a great benefit. Instead of choosing a number of spells known from Table 1-8: Psychic Spells Known, an amnesiac accesses spells she knew the previous day from the recesses of her mind. This requires 1 hour of meditation. Each day, for each spell level the amnesiac can cast, she retains a number of spells known equal to half the number listed on Table 1-8, rounded up. These spells must be selected from spells the amnesiac knew the previous day (including any spells she remembered using spell recollection; see below). The remainder of her spells known (half the number on Table 1-8, rounded down) become amnesia slots, which the amnesiac can use with her spell recollection ability (see below). To determine the spells she knows on the day when she first takes this archetype, the amnesiac picks any one 1st-level spell from the psychic spell list. This change to spells doesn't apply to knacks (0-level spells) or discipline spells, which function the same way they do for a normal psychic. When the amnesiac gains access to 3rd-level spells, she gains full recall of her 1st-level spells and no longer gains 1st-level amnesia slots, instead gaining the full number of 1st-level spells known from Table 1-8 and casting them as a normal psychic. When this happens, the amnesiac can select any level-appropriate spells from the psychic spell list as her spells known, even if they were never among the spells she prepared or recalled; once selected, these spells can no longer be changed, as with a normal psychic. Each time the psychic gains access to a new level of spells, she gains full memory of spells 2 levels lower in the same way (gaining full memory and permanently selecting her 2nd-level spells when she gains access to 4thlevel spells, and so on). This ability alters spellcasting.

Spells A psychic casts psychic spells drawn from the psychic class's spell list (see page 69). She can cast any spell she knows without preparing it ahead of time. To learn or cast a spell, a psychic must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a psychic's spell is equal to 10 + the spell's level + the psychic's Intelligence modifier. A psychic can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 1-7: Psychic. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score (see Table 1-3 on page 17 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook). The psychic's selection of spells is limited. A psychic begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of the psychic's choice. At each new psychic level, she learns one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 1-8: Psychic Spells Known. Unlike a psychic's spells per day, the number of spells a psychic knows isn't affected by her Intelligence score; the numbers on Table 1-8 are fixed. At 4th level and every even-numbered level thereafter (6th, 8th, and so on), a psychic can choose to learn a single new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the psychic loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least 1 level lower than the highest-level spell from the psychic's class list that the psychic can cast. A psychic can swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level. A psychic need not prepare her spells in advance. She can cast any psychic spell she knows at any time, assuming she has not yet used up her allotment of spells per day for the spell's level.

Subject of Study (Demon) Professor Lorrimor approached you as part of his studies, as he had heard that you had survived a recent encounter with a strange monster or had another fateful encounter. Interested in the conditions of the run-in and the means by which you avoided death or injury, he met with you and maintained frequent correspondence until several months ago. The scars of your experience and his continual reminders of the encounter prompted you to hone your skills lest you someday face the same type of creature again. The professor assisted you in this endeavor, providing you with insight into the anatomy and defenses of the creature that attacked you. Years of study have improved your combat effectiveness against your chosen foe. Choose a non-humanoid creature type (and subtype if outsider). You gain a +1 bonus on damage rolls against creatures of this type.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency A psychic is proficient with all simple weapons, but not with any type of armor or shield.
Weapon Familiarity (Ex) Half-orcs are proficient with greataxes and falchions, and treat any weapon with the word "orc" in its name as a martial weapon.

Will of the Dead (Su) Even undead creatures can be affected by the psychic's mind-affecting spells. The psychic can spend 2 points from her phrenic pool to overcome an undead creature's immunity to mind-affecting effects for the purposes of the linked spell. This ability functions even on mindless undead, but has no effect on creatures that aren't undead. This amplification can be linked only to spells that have the mind-affecting descriptor.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Douglas Edwards wrote:
Isabelle Lee wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Before he wouldn't have been taxed weapon focus, his weapon focus longbow would apply to the horn bow
This is incorrect, I'm afraid. Weapon Focus (longbow) is not an effect that applies to "both longbows and shortbows". ^_^
What is the intended effect of this new ruling then?

Only half orcs are automatically proficient with the weapons.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

GM_Starson wrote:
Such a bummer to. I received potions and poisons for my birthday because a friend knew how much I like those kinda characters and I was excited to use some of the stuff in it. I mean, I get why, all resources eventually be moved to 2e, but it seems like a such a bummer not to "finish" the 1e stuff first. :(

Wait what? The PRD and additional resources are two completely different things.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Kwinten Koëter wrote:
That DC 24 Diplomacy check is very difficult to make if you have a Charisma of 10 or didn't spend a skill point at each level, for instance. How can we make this fair?

Actually, its really easy to make a DC 24 check with a base score of 10 and less skill points of every level. That's kind of what makes specialists really bad trying to base difficulty around because in that tier range depending on the skill you'll have around a 20 base check.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Just as an observation if you built out the NPC boss correctly she would do 6d6+int bomb damage which is probably why they fudged the rules. Even without the bombs 4d6+int touch sneak attack from a flask is still pushing it. I noticed this in another recent scenario but they probably just toned it down so that she isn't an extremely deadly challenge.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Tallow wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:


They are physically incapable of remembering the rules which is a common enough issue that I doubt most people aren't aware of it.

This is a whole different issue, and its hard to even respond to this. Do we want to be exclusionary of someone who literally can't function in any sort of structured game without major assistance? No. And when I say, "...any structured game...," I mean anything from tag to volleyball to Warhammer 40K to Pathfinder in general, let alone PFS. They likely need significant help just to survive in the real world let alone playing a game. Which is fine. I'd be willing to assist someone like that. But it isn't likely that they are driving themselves, legally, to a game, and sitting down to play without some assistance with them anyways, if they literally can't remember rules to a game.

In which case, they don't need to be brave, and I don't need to pry. It is likely self evident immediately because their assistant will be asking for my help.

Unless you are using hyperbole to try and make your point...

No. I'm not using hyperbole. I also know you are incapable of noticing because it's appears as a relatively common quirk. That and symptoms tend to be all over the place. At the table it was just severe short term memory loss. I never really asked beyond that because it was also really depressing because you aren't wrong. Especially, since its not the first time I've known people in PFS with the exact issue to the point where they needed help. The only difference as far as I could tell is the symptoms manifested in other ways.


tivadar27 wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
The irony of people on these boards now saying, "Hell yeah it's like 4th edition- and that's why it's Grrrreat!" is really messing with my mind...

And here's where I defend the system I actually don't like :-P.

It's definitely similar in mechanics to the 4e multiclassing system, but I, at least, haven't heard anyone say *that's* why it's great. Multiclassing and classes in general had an issue that they all kinda felt "the same", so multiclassing essentially offered you abilities similar to those you had, but at a lesser power. What it offered was a false "diversity over power" trade-off, which is why a lot of people really disliked it, or at least, that's what I understand.

It's unclear to me if the 4e system would have been better received if the classes themselves had played better, but we'll see how this plays out for PF2E. Me, I'm not loving the way this was done, as essentially, there is no multiclassing, we just get more archetypes, but I'm also willing to see.

No. The classes were pretty distinguished in how they played and varied. The problem with multiclassing in 4E is a problem that Paizo hasn't shown they fixed in that feats that were fun cool and flavorful competed with feats that were dull as a used razor but kind of indispensable.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Just be careful A Case of Missing Persons has an overt reference to Eyes. I think you're still safe because I only got it after playing it but it's worth noting.


You're misremembering the multiclassing rules. At least what I was referencing was the fact that you went relegated to just the multiclassing paragon path. You could take any paragon path you multiclassing into.


Selene Spires wrote:

I have strong reservations about this system as it reminds too much of 4th ed 'multiclassing system...which even the designers and the most diehard fans said was inferior to 3.x.

Also enough with the feats...or change the game name to Featfinder.

Except 4e had 3e multiclassing and the words broken mess of a system were used to describe it. 4e did strike upon the best implementation which was a cross combination of an archetype and background that had its own progression. I'd need to look at them more to elaborate but it because made characters far more distinct than 3.x multiclassing.


Gorbacz wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Now we can argue about how true that is(Sadly it very much kinda is), but to a new player; they join a game, they pick a class(es) they have fun and then they go online...., only to see something they think is fun is completely belittled and dumped on in forums and posts. How dose that make the player feel to just see thread upon thread of "Oh.... I messed up". I don't even know if Rogue IS bad because I've never played the class! It just IS bad.
Don't worry, nobody reads forums except for a small group of hyper-invested nerds. Out of my 20+ regular players I am the only one with a Paizo.com account an aware of some silly "this is trash and garbage and whoever designed it should just stop breathing" nonsense that goes on since 2009 and is yet to stop people from playing Rogues :)
The problem is that you are ignoring the issue that the game is so borked that one could just accidentally build a better rogue out of multiple different core classes. There are about three to four different core classes that all are different variations of rogue and each one having a mechanical hook that differentiates and makes them more interesting than the base class.
John Lynch 106 wrote:


Secret Wizard wrote:
4E wasn't bad because multiclassing didn't work (there were other motivating factors)
One of the bad things about 4e was it's "multiclassing".

Multiclassing in 4E took a while for them to release and even then it was in a state of brokeness that 3E exhibited which was that if you didn't know what you were doing you would end up with a worst mechanical class. Also the other form of multiclassing in 4E was odd in that conceptually it was much more involved than just take x,y, and z feats but I don't remember how well it worked. Halfway through the game you could just change class progression to a ranger or rogue but I dont remember how viable it was.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Tallow wrote:

But "fill out this paperwork" is pretty ubiquitous in our society (not just PFS), and so they would already have experience on where they have problems and can immediately bring them to light.

No because well society is still pretty horrid when it comes to a lot of issues and most of this is relatively new compared to the archaic PFS rules. This is why I still stand by the jerk standpoint because of comments like this.

Quote:

It's not rubbernecking to want an example of the situation your proposing, and just shouting about "Exclusions!" doesn't help people understand and improve things to meet the needs of people with disabilities.

They are physically incapable of remembering the rules which is a common enough issue that I doubt most people aren't aware of it.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Tallow wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Tallow wrote:


The point is, you've used the buzz-word exclusionary in reference to the rules themselves. And then given no explanation as to what that even really means. So its hard to really comment on that or build a reasonable response.

Well I could just say what the issue is but the rules are physically painful for people to follow just sounds worst than they are exclusionary. And no I'm not actually joking about that.

But saying it this way doesn't make me feel like an jerk head for supporting following the rules. Then I can think of ways to help folks for whom it might be physically difficult or painful to follow the rules, instead of getting defensive about supporting an exclusionary process.

Are they handicapped? Rheumatoid arthritis perhaps? Injured combat veteran? You don't have to answer. But in real life, if confronted with a situation in which someone is having difficulty due to physical limitations, I can certainly try to help accommodate that by finding acceptable and less painful alternatives that still follow the rules.

See, appealing to someone's reasonable side gets a whole different conversation started, than immediately calling them exclusionary, which is a negatively weighted word that immediately puts them on the defensive.

Well it is because you can't actually figure out what is wrong with the person looking at them. And at that point it does make you a jerk. That was my original point and why I told you you were rubbernecking. You can't tell when people are physically incapable of doing something. And its not really something that should be up to arbitrary whim which is why I said its exclusionary.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Tallow wrote:


The point is, you've used the buzz-word exclusionary in reference to the rules themselves. And then given no explanation as to what that even really means. So its hard to really comment on that or build a reasonable response.

Well I could just say what the issue is but the rules are physically painful for people to follow just sounds worst than they are exclusionary. And no I'm not actually joking about that.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
He is not asking for personal information, he's asking for general examples. If you aren't comfortable sharing situations even stripped of private information, that's understandable. But don't expect us to accept 'it just is' as a valid reason.

I mean you pretty much guessed what the issue is and then are acting like its some mysterious thing that needs examples for. At that point you just want to rubberneck.

Partially, the reason why I am being so flippant about this is that most of the advice Tallow is giving is useless.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Tallow wrote:


You still haven't really given an example or valid reason for why requiring paperwork to be filled out is exclusionary. Just because, "a lot of players seem to have an issue with it," is more an issue of a lazy...

That's because your acting creepy and intrusive in regards to people I GM for? Just dam well accept it and stop acting like its some conspiracy.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Tallow wrote:


I likely won't notice, because I don't audit characters at the table unless I'm asked to, or I notice something is significantly off.

I disagree with you that they are bad, exclusionary, and don't work. But I'd like you to explain how they are exclusionary. That doesn't track for me at all. I can see an argument for bad and don't work even if I disagree with it.

Filling out paperwork is harder than you would think for an significant portion of the player base. Its something that is flagrantly obvious when you think about it but apparently not??? And I've hit some really unnoticeable cases of people who have a hard time doing that.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Tallow wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

I'm always interested to discover that the correct answer to "someone's not following the rules" is "they deserve a pass because it would be mean to enforce the rules".

Is Pathfinder Society that homogenized where you never run into a situation where you feel evil for enforcing the rules? I can think of three scenarios off the top of my head where I've kind of chucked the rules because they don't take into account issues people have. And the part that makes me leery about enforcing the rules like a hardliner is that the third scenario its impossible to tell why they would have issues unless you were told.

Depends on which rules weren't being followed. If the character looks/feels legit, and it literally doesn't matter to game play, then I will usually let it slide if I don't know the player (am in a new location.)

ITS sheets aren't filled out correctly and no tracking of prestige or fame. The record keeping rules are bad exclusionary and really don't work and its really hard to tell if it not being filled out is malicious or not at times.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

I'm always interested to discover that the correct answer to "someone's not following the rules" is "they deserve a pass because it would be mean to enforce the rules".

Is Pathfinder Society that homogenized where you never run into a situation where you feel evil for enforcing the rules? I can think of three scenarios off the top of my head where I've kind of chucked the rules because they don't take into account issues people have. And the part that makes me leery about enforcing the rules like a hardliner is that the third scenario its impossible to tell why they would have issues unless you were told.

EDIT:
Also, I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything. Its just that evil would be the word to describe the situations I've been in.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Stephen Ross wrote:

Auditing characters is a requirement for GMs in PFS per the Guide.

If anything is wrong and no time for adjustments or a more detailed review to get the character within the rules then switching characters to one that meets PFS rules is required.

It is but its also impossible to do correctly in any sort of timely fashion. Seriously, how do you expect me to audit people who its physically impossible to fill out a chronicle sheet in the way you want it to.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Gummy Bear wrote:

This seems pretty egregious since a +2 weapon is more gold than a level 4 character "should" have. I suppose it is technically possible if they were part way to level 5, but even then a single other purchase would make it impossible.

And that is before we even get to the fame requirements.

I just checked the character I'm self auditing and she had 10,000 gp around then. It's easily doable. I think how it happens is that certain chronicles give out double the expected wealth by value if you play them in the right order.

Edit:
It depends on the circumstances. The rules are obnoxiously impossible in certain cases and without knowing more it's hard to say.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Blake's Tiger wrote:
Jane "The Knife" wrote:
"An Trapbraker Alchemist is not that different from a Rogue at the end of the day. So putting a Rogue behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a Stealthy/Lockpicking/Trapsmith build." works just as well.

Nobody has to agree with my speculation, but that comparison doesn't work just as well.

Only the Trapbreaker Alchemist gets extracts (including the use of wands without UMD investment), discoveries, and bombs.
Only the Rogue gets sneak attack and dex to damage.

What does a sylph get that an elf doesn't? Darkvision, feather fall 1/day, and electricity resistance 5. Elves get immunity to sleep and resistance to enchantment and, if they want, can trade elven magic for energy resistance 5 or a suite of SLAs. So... darkvision vs. low-light vision.

However, my only point is that gating races behind a boon has less of an impact than gating a class. We can disagree on the magnitude of each of the impacts, but I will be hatd to convince race > class.

A sylph has the option to gain blanket immunity to some of the worst spells in the game.

Edit
I misspoke. You'll invalidate a lot of tactics early on but after a point higher level versions negate that advantage.


Insight wrote:
Good point ;).

What that is what Monte Cook admitted? It's debatable whether or not it actually was intentional but 3E is a very confusing system with a bunch of useless options in it.

Edit:
Also, the reason why I play PF is that it's kind of a gonzo system and setting which is reflected in the mechanics.


Insight wrote:
To be fair, 3rd edition went through a complete revision just 2 years after release, and the substantial changes to the ranger in that case were just a small sliver of the overall changes to the core.

Actually the major revision to 3E that fixed a lot of it's problems was 4E. There is really no way to salvage 3E as game system because even by the creators own admission they purposefully added bad elements into the game as a design point and made it ridiculously obtuse that they did that. Even the stuff retained from 3E the developers admitted had issues in 4th in that you had limited resources (feats) which competed for cool stuff and stuff that was kind of needed.


BryonD wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
I wouldn't cite the system that is so horribly imbalanced that they decided to rewrite an entire chunk of core as evidence of anything.
Not to derail, but can you link me to something about this? I enjoyed 5E for a bit over a year, but it did run thin, so I came back over the PF. Where is this "rewrite an entire chunk of core" found? Thanks

They rewrote the Ranger because it really doesn't work as a class at all.

Quote:

And after six months of playing this, does the wizard start feeling awesome? Nope, he doesn't even notice. The reason he doesn't notice is the rogue character whose thunder he is stolen has stolen all of the wizard thunder by being able to back door around problem the wizard used to solve. And both of them notice the fact that being cool in what they want to do has been diminished way more than they notice they can do those others things where the other guy used to shine.

Since when have skills ever been the defining thing of a character? I know there are skill monkey classes but even then that isn't necessarily the thing that defines my character.

Quote:
In the 3X games I've been playing for going on to 20 years now, there have certainly been times when frontal assault was decided to be the best plan. But there have also been times when the group came up with solutions, often including elements of magic, by which characters who were not at all built with stealth in mind, were included in "sneaky" missions. But rather than just hand waving that *everybody knows how to sneak past a bunch of trained guards*, the really sneaky guys and spallcasters had to expend resources and carry the weight of these "stealth deadbeats" because they knew that having the whole team together on the other side would be worth it. And them, instead of it simply being an easy matter of this group of competents to waltz in, a risky situation followed and much drama and excitement was had as they put their plan into action.

Its literally a third level spell. One that you can make copies of till the cows come home.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Insight wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Furthermore I vehemently disagree that the +level to everything method of balancing the game is "the best part of 4e" and the 5e devs agreed that it was a mistake by cutting it down drastically.
So you think Mearls and Crawford and Co definitely removed +level from 5e because they explicitly believe it was a mistake? Because they've never said as such. Just because they included bounded accuracy in 5e due to its virtues they've espoused doesn't mean they don't think that +level doesn't also have its pros or 5e's bounded accuracy its cons. It just means it was a good fit with what they wanted to do with 5e.

I do believe it was removed because they felt +level was a mistake. Which devs I'm not going to hazard a guess at (unfortunately so much of the 5e playtest has been removed from the internet). But including it caused some very specific issues such as fey crocodiles being necessary. It also laid bare the treadmill that D&D has been built on since day 1 and all this is a symptom of the fact the balance methods used in 4e were so obvious (everyone being exactly the same, everything getting scaled automatically, everyone ultimately having awfully similar abilities which were ever so slightly different to justify them existing in unison).

One of the things I do know for a fact that the 5e devs feel about 4e, is that 4e was too well balanced. The perfection of it's balance (not that it was perfect, looking at you tempus fighter or whatever the option was called in Martial Power) and they deliberately chose not to have 5e be so tightly balanced as a result.

This chart with the fiddly changes to DC to me is another example of trying to make the game too well balanced.

I wouldn't cite the system that is so horribly imbalanced that they decided to rewrite an entire chunk of core as evidence of anything.

EDIT:
Not that 4th edition didn't have that problem either but that was a far more harder problem to solve than make a core class functionable.


Brock Landers wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
That said, I also like the design space of a completely mundane/martial leadery class (as I have discussed elsewhere).
The best implementation of that is the Noble class for d20 Star Wars Saga Edition, I find it vastly superior to the Marshal and Warlord of 3rd and 4th Ed, respectively.

I'm looking at it and what does it do? It seems like its just a generic 3E fighter.


Maveric28 wrote:

Overall, I like it... I'm a big fan of "Bard: the Musical," and this teaser seems to make the classic "Elan-Bard" work better. If you want a bard that walks into a dungeon and sings at things, this is definitely the way to go. Kudos!

However... I was hoping for the Bard becoming a gateway to the long-awaited Rogue-Sorcerer gish. At present Bards are great for caster-rogues IF you like the performance aspect. But there seems to be no option for a classic AD&D-themed Rogue/Wizard who amplifies his stealth, thievery and subterfuge with spellcasting. So unless you want a bard who sings, dances, or tells jokes to activate his powers, there is still no avenue for creating a spell-using thief. It's my only critique so far. I know PF didn't have it before, but as an old Grognard, I've been hoping for a class that would enable creating this character concept for some time. (Before you all start suggesting it, obviously multiclass rogue/sorcerers don't work very well, as multiclass sorcerers lack any real spellcasting power, and multiclass rogues give up far too many skill points). So unless PF2 includes some really kick-ass multiclassing options, this desired concept is still un-achievable.

So... to sum up. Want a singing Bard who uses some aspect of music or artsy-performance to do his thing? This is it. You want a rogue-y caster who uses magic to do his sneaking and stealing without singing or dancing his way into your hearts? ... This ain't it.

Pathfinder had the spellcaster rouge. Its called the Investigator and it works ridiculously well.
Mats Öhrman wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:


Truth be told Inspire Courage is such a boring ability that I'm surprised you didn't just replace it with something else. Even in Pathfinder 1 the more useful buffing abilities that you could gain access from classes to usually did something more than just add static modifiers to attack, damage, and saves.
It *is* very convenient for GMs, as they can keep the intended difficulty of their encounters by just increasing the appropriate monster stats by one when the party starts using this ability.

Except we don't actually know if the Bards won't be able to give out +5 bonuses with regularity. Mark says they don't but anyone fishing for bonuses in PF 1 quickly learns that spell boosts scale faster and are easier to obtain.


Mark Seifter wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
Bard looks very strong from its roots. Bard was a good class before now it looks like it just got a huge buff. This is also leading me to be concerned about the balance of PF2.
It got many big (or even huge, as you say) improvements, but also the way the system works is different, so you're not going to having a bard drop +6 to hit and damage (2 of which is also to pretty much all other checks from good hope) to everyone on round 1, a game-altering amount even in PF1 where a party with a bard suddenly wouldn't even notice the issues with accuracy-starved classes like chained rogue and monk. This bard is stronger and more versatile at many things you can choose to do with it, but in part that is possible because the proud nail obvious most powerful option is less better than everything else (like how inspire courage blocked the other base performances in PF1 from being used until you could get up multiple and had an oversized effect on archetypes based on whether or not it was replaced).

Truth be told Inspire Courage is such a boring ability that I'm surprised you didn't just replace it with something else. Even in Pathfinder 1 the more useful buffing abilities that you could gain access from classes to usually did something more than just add static modifiers to attack, damage, and saves.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Behold the violence rocket tag inherent in the system!

I don't think it's really avoidable. its just the problem with high level play.

It isn't but it also really is kind of a pain in the butt in terms of combat because if you design around it you can negate pretty much every single sos that can get thrown at you. I know one of my characters is built around the concept of,"What's the worst possible thing Paizo can throw at a player and how do I negate it easily?".

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

SCPRedMage wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Hmm okay, I was curious by the ability for it to speak a language if that got over the handle animal.

Is there a pfs way to get an animal to not need to be handled?
Short answer: no, and that's intentional.

Actually the quick answer is yes. Yes there is. I don't know how common it is but there are archetypes that say the animal is intelligent enough to not need to learn tricks or be handled anymore.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Starcomet wrote:
I am only 1 more goal away from becoming a jeweled sage of the Sacarab Sages and either need to become possessed via a magic jar or a similar ability, permanently destroy a haunt, or defeat divs, followers of divs, or an evil necromancer. The thing is, it has to be a 7-11 scenario as my wizard is level 10 and going slow. Does any one know which scenarios or modules can fulfill these requirements?

That one is easy. Never thought about it until it was pointed out but you could just have someone in the group do it.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Paul Jackson wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:


What are you playing as because there is an not insignificant chunk of classes where being well rounded has the side effect of making you more combat effective.

I mostly disagree. Pure buffer classes may fall into that category (I love bards for a reason :-)). But pretty much any class that does damage as its primary contribution to combat is going to be at least slightly impacted in combat if they become more rounded.

Money, traits, feats, class abilities. The more you put towards combat capability the less you have for out of combat utility.

There are certainly classes and builds that are impacted far LESS than others and for some the impact is pretty nominal. But even for something like a bard that feat I spend on Skill Focus - Perform could be "better" spent on improving my fortitude save or something.

You do realize that there is overlap between the two right? I have fiveish Pathfinder characters which by how they are designed have to invest in skills to get better at combat. And some of those characters are arguably better than a two handed barbarian.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Paul Jackson wrote:
andreww wrote:
I would agree with that. I would also say that combat in lots of the higher tier season 9 scenario's have been significantly challenging.

I think that they may have gone a little overboard on difficulty, actually.

Simultaneously ratcheting up the combat challenge AND expecting characters to be more rounded just seems a little too much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the people who loves skills and non combat stuff. But I DO pay a (small) price for that in that my characters are less combat effective than they might be. And a couple of scenarios have made me question that choice. Haven't actually seen a TPK yet but there have been so close calls.

What are you playing as because there is an not insignificant chunk of classes where being well rounded has the side effect of making you more combat effective.

Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Shaudius wrote:

I've also read that the VC for which Michael investigated was at one point dating the niece of the RVC which, if true, feels like a pretty big conflict of interest. This should have removed any investigation of that VC out of the purview of that RVC but which apparently did not. Even if not impropriety itself certainly raises the appearance of impropriety.

No it doesn't because what you describe is more of the norm than anything. Conflict of intrest gets bizarre as all hell in these sort of situations because very often its completely unavoidable.

1 to 50 of 1,200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>