Markon's page

Organized Play Member. 97 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hello everyone, I am resurrecting this thread because, well, I'm about to be in a mythic campaign, starting as a L 12 Transmutation specialist, with either 2 or 3 mythic levels (depending on a few things), but to get to the point, the setting is very much an archipelago. I expect water to be a major concern.

Also, the GM set our starting gold VERY low for our level (or maybe there was a typo, I will ask him about it soon), so protecting my few pieces of gear from damage, and being able to function nicely in water, are both priorities. I guess I'm just curious if anything new (especially spells) that's great for water campaigns has came along.

I love how, in the two answers I got, I got two disagreeing interpretations. I know these forums hate it when people "insist" on official answers, but this obviously is not clear to people.

And to address what dragonhunterq asked, I would go with saying that a dwarf with boots of speed would still have a speed of 40 in heavy armor/at heavy encumbrance (20, doubled, for the haste effect from the boots). This seems clear to me, from the wording of the Slow and Steady ability. But he would still only run at X3.

So, not to resurrect this thread, but this question (about how running works at heavy encumbrance/in heavy armor) came up for a game I am starting, a few weeks ago, during character creation. I did a search, and this is the the only thread I found on the subject. My common sense and my reading of the RAW makes me think that running while heavily armored/heavily encumbered would, indeed, only get a X 3 modifier. I see this as not modifying the speed, but modifying the BONUS to their speed. I know this is a very minor difference, but... it makes more sense to me.

Am I missing an official clarification somewhere?

You know, I haven't been on these forums in a while, and this sort of conversation reminds me of why. To those saying the rules on prices are "broken"..... you're wrong. People have explained why; the rules are priced based on the MECHANICAL benefit they give, and when you look at it from that point of view (and that clearly is the point of view of the game developers, because that's what the result reflects), the rules work fine.

Now, if you say "the prices on weapons from Sdamantine and Mithral are unrealistic from the point of view of raw materials needed", then this is true. but that's because the game is mostly balanced around combat mechanics. Yes, I realize the game has some role-playing related skills and feats and powers, but when it comes to determining he cost of something, game balance is the core consideration, not "How realistically does this model a real economy?"

There is nothing that needs an "easy fix". The point of the game is NOT to worry about the economy so much. Go adventure if you need to make some money. Or play an RPG that handles wealth in a more interesting manner, such as allowing it to be used to boost various skills, that sort of thing. Pathfinder is not the game to use to delve into the idea of setting up a fancy economy, at least certainly not in the nitty-gritty of crafting unusual items.

Let it go. :)

If I remember correctly, 3.0/3.5 made it clear that the good part of alignment is more important than lawful. Whoever was saying that Paladins must obey all laws, of wherever they are.... you're not thinking it through. Look at some of the holes in that logic that other people pointed out.

Also, a high level caster vs a bunch of mundanes, the caster will crush them and be untouchable. Politics, counter attacks, etc, is another question, and can change it up, but pur stats, gear, spells, etc? No question.

ON a different note, somebody said something about an army ambushing someone.... that just sounds kinda silly. Especially since that someone was a high level caster, but even still, it just gave me an image of hundreds of guys, all just waiting for one guy to come by so they can jump him, piled on top of each other in each hiding place, like sardines.....

On the subject of honor: different codes and cultures can vary widely, for a quick real world comparison, look at European Chivalry and Japan's Bushido, if I'm remembering correctly. I'm sure there are some big differences (and likely some strong similarities, as well).

Generally speaking though, all the stuff about just yelling "No quarter will be given", or whatever, to not accept surrender.... sounds like a cheap justification to try to dodge your code of honor. Unless, of course, you already have one that doesn't allow for surrender anyway, but baring that.... and as someone who DM's more than I play, any code of honor that doesn't allow surrenders, I would have a hard time letting a player with that sort of code be of Good alignment.

Killing when you don't have to is pretty much the fastest way to drop from Good to either neutral or evil, in my book.

Ok, off to comment quickly on that paladin post....

I was wondering about this myself the other day.... let me see if I can find a way to do it.

Well, the closest I could find was to click their name, above on of their posts somewhere, and then their is a tab to check out all their posts, but I'm sure that's not as efficient as what you're looking for... Anyone who can point us in the right direction?

Maybe it's just coincidence, but recently I've seen people arguing for some really ridiculous things, and it seems to be people's nature to continue to argue for it, long after somebody points out why their argument is ridiculous. Hopefully it was just bad luck, because I swear sometimes the craziness I see just makes me wonder how man kind has made it this far...

I don't mean someone talented and dedicated enough to be another designer, just someone who loves the game enough and knows the rules enough to be able to keep the crazy from getting out of hand.

So, in response to my thread complaining about a lack of common sense being locked...

(which honestly doesn't surprise me, it was made to vent, and while it was never specifically rude to anyone, it obliviously came from my frustration at certain posters)...

...I noticed the locking comment mentioned that if somebody has an idea for website feedback, to make a thread, so here I am.

My idea: Hire someone to become intimately familiar with the game and the design of the game, so they have the knowledge required to patrol the message boards and tell people when their idea makes no sense.

They of course could help with other things around the office, I'm sure shooting down crazy ideas is not a full time job, but I doubt there is anyone at Paizo who's primary task is to give feedback on the message boards. (Not the same as moderating them, though I suppose that would be a natural extension of their duties. I expect an existing moderator could easily be promoted to this job, if they have the system mastery).

And if you think this is a crazy idea.... if only there was someone at Paizo who's job it was to tell me I'm nuts! (Let the paradox of that stew in your mind for a bit...) ;)

I don't expect this thread to contribute much, just wanted to blow off some steam. And the threads that got me worked up just had people arguing for crazy things, most of them were actually pretty polite about it. I was actually kind of a jerk in one of my replies, but only because I KNOW the proposed idea was BROKEN, and NOT what was intended,and it was just so frustrating to see people trying to argue for it. I'm not going to say what thread it was, because the reason I made this tread was to blow off steam without pointing people's foolishness out.

I usually don't get so worked up, just... ugh, common sense people, common sense! Use it! If someone, withing a few minutes of reading your post, can point out a super broken example of what your idea would mean, your idea is wrong!

(edited to add a couple commas and a few words for clarity)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
watre wrote:

My last session in a level 5 party our serenrae cleric fireballed a group of 6 orcs who were clumped up near a barracks entrance. One shotted them. About ten minutes prior, our ranger had in two turns killed 5 guys with no help or even a chance for backup (we weren't around) and the 6th guy he didn't kill fled. Guess what, our cleric has 1 fireball a day. The ranger always stays stocked on arrows like he should...

Watre, you're point is true at L 5, but if you think a well played caster by L 14, 15, is going to only have one or two good spells ready to go, you're crazy. And from everything I have seen, once a party gets too low on spells, they stop, because nobody wants to go into a level appropriate challenge with their kick butt spell caster buddies not ready to back them up. Of course, an intelligent enemy, played by a GM who wants to push the group hard, could have that be the moment that some bad guys launch their ambush, and then the non-casters would really have a chance to shine, but I don't think that happens very often.

I'm curious, do other people get the feeling that a solid portion of people on the messages boards lack any common sense? I've been reading a lot of threads recently, and sometimes the ideas I see just blow my mind.

Why do so many Pathfinder players have such a low real world wisdom score...... :/

Sorry everyone, I failed my will save vs. Righteous-know-it-all rage....

I can't even believe this discussion is happening.... The rules don't explicitly state it because the people who made the game expect this stuff to be read with some common sense.

It makes NO sense for a character to be able to lose stored arcane spells to case cure spells. (like the L19 wizard/L1 cleric example from above).

I really feel like this is just a common sense thing. It even says "not an orison or domain spell", that implies that the designers were clearly thinking about the cleric spells at the time, because this is a base class.

Also keep in mind, when someone is new to this game, making a character, they have to absorb a lot of stuff at once. If every single ability had to over-explain everything, it would add pages and pages more text to a book that is already pretty intimidating in size.

Maybe it's just because I'm tired, but the fact that this thread even exists makes me wish I could make a weapon out of common sense, and stab it into people's heads, because some people clearly need some common sense in their brains.....

Yes, that sounds very hostile, no I don't want to hurt anyone.... I just don't know how to make people realize how ridiculous they sound. Stop and consider how broken it would be if I was wrong. Then pretty much EVERY high level prepared caster (wizard, druid, witch, magus I believe, it's been forever since I've looked at a non-Core Rulebook class) would be an IDIOT to not take a level in cleric, so they could turn their high level spells into powerful heals when needed. Amount of sense made = 0.

And in reference to the magus, I assume a lot of the abilities were written the way they were to help prevent craziness like this from happening. My common sense says by the time that class was being written, the people making the book were more aware of multi-class shenanigans, so they put more thought into making things precisely clear. So don't get sidetracked by the difference in witting style.

TL:DR; The OP's idea is BROKEN, and makes no sense thematically. Don't read too much into things, use common sense.

Forgive my laziness when it comes to learning how to format, I just copied the relevant line from a few posts up...

Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.

My understanding of this is, your readied action is pointless if you follow it up with a move action, because once you take a move action, it's effectively gone.

Plus, from the way I picture it, if the fighter is busy advancing, and the wizard was ready to get the drop on him when he got within 30 feet, the wizard with his readied action should get to go first. If the fighter wanted to cautiously advance, ready to disrupt any spells at they go off, he should use 5 foot steps.

So I guess I would allow the fighter's readied action to go first, only if he still has it (by 5 foot stepping, and not using an action to move), after he readies his disruptive attack. (Obviously the fighter is using a ranged weapon, yes?)

On a note about the added strength rating, I'm 99 % sure that would be useful if your bow was somehow caught in a dispel effect or something similar that temporarily suppressed the magic on the bow, so if your DM ever throws that at you, you'll still get your 200 gold's worth!

I just did a search, the product is from Dreamscarred press, not Paizo. Hopefully you can find a fellow poster who is familiar.

Oh gosh, not that over thinking again. I saw that argument before, and it is just as stupid now as it was then. Some people who play this game remind me of a friend of mine who's a little slow (no, that's not sarcasm) who simply can't separate the intent from how it's written, and can't tell sarcasm and exaggeration from the truth. I suppose to make the really anal people happy, the line "Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare her spells in advance. She can cast any spell she knows at any time, assuming she has not yet used up her spells per day for that spell level."... just needs to have the little note "(or higher level, as mentioned earlier)" added to the end, but it's implied....

For those who argue general versus specific, how about this; The GENERAL assumption is that people cast spells with slots of the proper level. The SPECIFIC guidance is that you can use higher levels spell slots for lower level spells, in the rare instances you want/need to.

Finally, the GENERAL assumption is that people will understand the SPECIFIC guidance that you can use higher level slots for lower level, because there were no SPECIFIC exceptions, so the developers expected the population to GENERALLY be intelligent enough to realize the SPECIFIC intent.

Yes, this was kinda snarky, but if I'm wrong I will be so shocked I will almost die. Also, I will be so pissed at Paizo I will consider not buying anything they make... but I'm sure I'm right, because if Sourcerers really couldn't use higher level slots for lower level spells, I am SURE Paizo would have made a note of that exception, very clearly, either in the Sorcerer section or in the part about being able to cast lower levels spells with higher level slots (or both).

TL, DR: Don't over-think it, use your higher level slots for lower levels spells if you want sourcerers ( and by extension, oracles, as well, and also bards), and stop being so anal those who think otherwise. :)

Final disclaimer: my comment about some people being slow is not an insult aimed at anyone, I'm not on these boards enough to be picking on any one person (I don't know anyone here that well!). But if you find yourself looking REALLY deeply into things written in the core book, you're probably over-thinking it, relax, enjoy the game, and have fun!

I've got to disagree with Claxon here. If you put the symbol on, for instance, a treasure chest, why wouldn't you be able to teleport the treasure chest? I read the term "magical forces" to mean things such as Wall of Force, or a Force Cube, not an object that has a spell cast on it.

Similarly, I think if the treasure chest was teleported near an ally of mine, i would have just screwed them over, because instead of them saying the password as they entered the 60 foot radius, now they are within that radius and haven't said the password. Stinks to be them.... Maybe there is a (couple second) delay before the rune does it's thing, just enough time to say the password? I don't have the spell description in front of me to see how the password is normally supposed to be implemented, in more detail than the line above gives (or is that all the guidance?).

Other opinions? I'm pretty confident on part 1, part 2, not so sure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wraithstrike, unless Paizo made a HUGE, HORRIBLE change, you're wrong about mage armor being useless when combined with worn armor. I don't have the time to look up every single reference, but basically, Mage Armor is great to have up and active if there is a chance there are ghosts (or similar creatures) around. Against the ghosts, the +4 armor bonus applies. Against anything else, the greater armor bonus applies.

Also, to everyone else quoting Bracers of Armor, that's a specific magic item. Bracers of Armor works the way Bracers of Armor works, and that's largely a game balance thing. This is (at least in part) to prevent rogues and bards and the like from running around in "+1 padded armor of a million different effects", and wearing + 8 bracers of armor, and benefiting from both at once.

I just realized I basically said the same thing as Malachi Silverclaw. He's absolutely right.

This thread is nuts, in sometimes funny, sometimes sad ways. Don't take this stuff too seriously guys, I feel like I'm going to get a heart attack just from the tension here. Also, for my 2 cents.... a feat that lets you attack with a tail you don't have is useless. Use some magic, get a magic item, whatever, then you can put it to use. It just seems like common sense to me. But obviously some people disagree.

(At least this isn't as bad as that one player who kept insisting you could just abuse the crap out of outsiders with that one spell, and because the spell says something along the lines of "the outside may seek revenge for your actions", he was arguing that NO other creature could seek revenge as well, because the spell description didn't say they could..... that was epically ignorant.)

(Edited to fix a typo.)

Side note: Rage cycling is ridiculous, I don't think I would let a player do it, (yes, I would warn them of this). After reading all of this, I think I would let the player get both AoO, even though I'm not sure that's exactly what RAW would allow, but it seems balanced (again, if you ignore thoughts of Rage Cycling at much higher levels).

Does it matter? His turn is over, he's not going to move anymore until it is his turn again, at which point he could start his turn by moving. Or am I missing something?

Frederic wrote:
Yes, I agree with all of you. Especially without the Ambidexterity feat of bygone editions and the eventual removal of all penalties to Att. THF is better use of feats to hit and damage than TWF.

In response to the mention of Ambidexterity, the core Ambidexterity feat in the 3.0 Player's handbook was simply incorporated into I believe the Two Weapon Fighting feat. It never made TWF not have the -2 penalty that you get, it simply made it so you only needed one feat (TWF) and a light weapon in the offhand, instead of two feats and a light weapon. (More precisely, it eliminated the extra -4 the offhand had when TWFing).

Now if later stuff did remove that lingering -2 penalty, it would have been from some other 3.0 book, and I don't remember it.

Nice to see I'm not the only one who noticed the color variation in the initial cards, I thought it looked a bit funny. Hooray for the game doing well enough to get a re-print!

Hey guys, after some craziness I'm back! It's been a while since I played, but let me try to answer real quick....

As far as failing, with my 5 man party it almost never happens now, but I have had a lot of luck with good loot (boons, really), and the characters synergize well. In my 2 man games and 6 player game it happened a lot more, so it's really hard to give an exact number.. about 10 % for experienced players with good boons, 30 % maybe for less experienced players or groups where multiple characters are using a lot of outdated boons.

As far as death, almost never, it's not worth being risky. This ties into the fact that, if it did happen, i think i would go with choice D, due to not being a 15 year old with all the free time in the world anymore to just play games, you know? But I would be a little annoyed that I had to do it, so I play cautiously in order to avoid making it happen. With riskier players.... I could see it happening maybe 20 % of the time, and I would probably go with option D, I see no point in making them start from scratch.

Regarding the blessings deck timing out, if it wasn't for that candle, it would happen to me a LOT, because I do play a bit greedy sometimes. With the candle, I often win with just a turn or two to spare, though there have been a few wins where it wasn't an issue.

Oh, and is it just me, or is option D the most popular for death?

Don't forget that in solo play, some cards (generally some barriers) become almost impossible to beat, don't be afraid to follow the guidance in the rule booklet about swapping out cards. Getting stuck under the collapsed feeling card isn't much fun if it's a complete game ender.

As for specific 2 person combos, I think they are all fairly balanced. I try to always have one character with Diplomacy, because it can be used to squire a solid majority of the allies out there, but that's just my playstyle. Also, don't be afraid to tweak the starting suggested decks!

You could evade it though, say if Merisiel was close to death. The card will be back at some point (unless the location gets closed by henchman/villian being defeated), but she's still alive for now!

Zebra, I think your last post there should be a separate thread.

To answer your question about errata (kind of), someone did make a list, give me a second, I will try to find it.

Ok, couldn't find the nice compiled list (darn), but off the top of my head...

A couple of weapons are missing a trait (Bastard sword +1 is two handed, and I think maybe a warhamer +1 is missing magic trait?)

Ambush barrier should be banished after it's encountered, defeated or not.

A bugbear henchman from adventure path one is missing the Goblin trait.

Detect Magic is difficulty 4 to recharge, not 14.

Scorching ray (from AP1) is not basic.

All of the errata is in the FAQ, it's just not complied right next to each other (last time I checked, anyway).

That is at least most of them, maybe I'll go through the FAQ later and compile all of the ones that have a game changing effect on the card. And then I'll put it in a new thread, with a name that makes sense... yeah, sure....

OK, +1 to the above idea from Zebracakes4me. Everyone is familiar with the veteran idea, so it's not new or confusing. It doesn't break immersion like the idea that some of us, myself included, pushed so hard for. Even if only a couple of henchman sets ever get reused in a later adventure path, it wold still save about 14, 21, whatever cards that could go on to be something cooler (or just more monsters and barriers that fit the theme).

Until we see the cards that say "can't be evaded"... I'm sure they will be harmless though :P

Just giving this a bump, because it is happening tonight. I realize it's a long shot that anyone lives nearby, but hey, I tried :)

As a long shot, you can close every other location first, at some point, you'll beat the villain (probably repeatedly) and then the villain will have to eventually end up there, and you can close the location, sacrifice free!

I'm having trouble getting links to work, so I'm just going to paste the name of the thread here:

So many henchman cards... a suggestion to change this in the next AP

That's my suggestion. i know I referenced it in my post above, but I just did a LARGE post reinforcing why I think reducing the number of henchman cards is a good idea, so I figured I would mention it one more time.

Also, as Vic said, it will get better in a few more paths, when we can clear out basic cards, but the OP's issue could still be addressed by the method put out in that other thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I have seen another thread complaining about a similar issue: ards

and the most recent post in that thread asked for a solution. I think this thread right here is the solution, so I'm going to push a little harder on this subject. So, two counter-points to make

Counter- Point 1: To the people who think that it would complicate things (Dave Riley said:

It would also add more complication for scenarios with named henchman. You would need a card that said "On your third henchman encounter, draw a skeleton. On your fourth encounter draw Ratfink the Ratman, on your fifth encounter...")

What you put forward there is complicated, but that's not what most of us are picturing. All that would have to be done is something like this.

Step A: In the rulebook, add a line about how the LAST henchman on the scenario card is the "Generic Henchman", "Abundant Henchman", "Bottom of the Totem Pole henchman", "Minion henchman" or whatever they want to call it.

Step B: In the part of the rulebook that details setting up the game, make it clear that the one copy of the scenarios "Minion Henchman" card (Goblin raider, for example) is placed next to the scenario card, and however many copies of the card titled "Minion henchman" are added to the pile that contains the Villain and any non-minion henchman in order to make the pile the proper size.

Step C: Add a tiny line about how when you draw the "Minion henchman" card, refer to the scenarios Minion Henchman.

Side note: This could help SOLVE the confusion that people have when barriers that refer to henchman cards make people think that they can close the location. You could take that text OFF of the Goblin Raider card, and add it to the "Minion henchman" card that would go into the location decks. Therefore, when a barrier refers people to the henchman, they wouldn't see text about attempting to close a location, and they wouldn't get confused by it.

So to re-empahsize, a card like the one from my (improperly formatted) quote wouldn't need to exist. If the scenario calls for villain, henchman A, henchman B, and the however many copies of henchman C, henchman A and B (and the villain, of course) would each have their own card. Only henchman C would be represented in the location decks by the "Minion Henchman" card.

Counter point 2: I think at least a few people said that it would break immersion too much. I guess this one is just a matter of opinion, but I feel it would break immersion less than any of the barriers that make you summon a card from the box to face. (or that one ally that makes you possibly summon the Sandpoint Devil). Any time I have to go digging in the box is probably when the immersion is at it's weakest, for me.

So in my personal opinion, while this method would certainly be less immerse than the current slightly simpler method of just having a ton of minion cards, the break in immersion would be less than other breaks in immersion that several barriers and a few other cards cause for me already. It would also help prevent some confusion about being able to close a location after fighting a henchman summoned from the box. And by far most importantly, as people have been saying in this thread and the one I linked above, it would let us add more of other types of cards into every box of 110. Even if it was just more duplicates of monsters and barriers that already exist, it would still allow for the developers to add more focus to each AP by adding more cards that fit it.

OK, I think I spelled this out in a lot of detail, anyone who's not clear on what I'm saying, please ask. And obviously some people (including the head people behind the game) don't see things my way, but I'm REALLY hoping that if enough of us chime in, maybe we can see this changed. :)

Edited to try to fix link.

Oh, and PS, Legendary is a good game too, but it just didn't hook me the way this game does :)

Hello everyone, if anybody lives near Albany, NY, or has friends that do, I plan on running the first scenario (Brigandoom!) at a friendly local gaming store, this Tuesday at 6 PM (give or take a few). If anyone is interested, let me know!

This wouldn't turn into a full campaign all the way through, but it's a chance to introduce the game to some new people. Also, if the turn out is decent, I would be willing to do a few repeats, so people can watch their decks and characters grow in power. If anyone is local and owns a copy that they want to bring, I would love to see another player who owns the game (in case of a big turn out, I can handle 6, but after that I have to turn people away, unless I get an assist!) :).

Bah, I had a different thread for my thoughts on death, didn't mean to sidetrack this one, sorry!

Hey now, this is Pathfinder, they would HAVE to put a Goblin on the card, as well. :)

Explosive runes is the worst offender, the blade trap, to a lesser degree the bell. I had a few games in a row where I was seeing explosive runes, almost always when I was low on blessings, without any tools in hand to handle it.

At least now most of my guys have either armor or the loot medalion to handle that card's damage, and with more blessings and bigger hand sizes it's less of a threat than before (due to a greater chance to have enough buff cards to succeed at the roll), but especially the first few adventures, it was brutal.

And to clarify, even barriers that deal combat damage can be bad if you're caught without armor. I feel like most of my characters just don't have the skills to beat most damage dealing barriers, without a buff or three. And of course, luck plays into this.

Ashez73 wrote:

Do tell me you are not recharging Blessing of Gods using its copy ability. Although there can be some doubts about the wording, it is not a way it was designed- as explained by Mike Selinker on BGG.

And it makes the game very, very easy.

Not sure if you were aiming this at me or the other person, who mentioned boosting monsters a lot to add to the challenge, but on the chance the concern was aimed at me, no, I use them correctly. BoG would be WAY overpowered used incorrectly.

To h4ppy's idea of buffing the end villain... if that was done, and you found him while most of the team was low on blessings, it could certainly make for a painful turn, but in all honesty, I think most of my games I would have been able to handle the buff to the villain. However, a poor roll would definitely result in an empty hand (or a buried armor, anyway).

I may play through again someday with buffed henchmen and villains, and with a penalty for death that doesn't reset one character back to nothing, but rather feels a bit more like the RPG where the cost of getting a resurrection takes a toll on the whole party. The game as a whole will be harder, but death won't make me want to rage-quit. :) But for now I still haven't even finished my first play through of part 2, with standard rules (at least until a death, in which case I will have to decide how I want to handle that).

h4ppy wrote:
@Bidmaron - @xris is correct. The tools are limited by the "highest check to defeat" of the barriers you want to use them on. If there's no check to defeat then you cannot use the tools.
Bidmaron wrote:
Thanks, h4ppy. Now how should I have known that without asking on the forums?

To answer the question, I would go back to one of the guiding rules that I believe Mike put out: If a card doesn't say it does something, it doesn't do that thing. Masterwork thieves tools only auto-defeats something with a difficulty of 14 or less. As xris put it, a difficulty to defeat of "None" is just different. Masterwork thieves tools doesn't say anything about defeating barriers that don't have a check to defeat, therefore it doesn't defeat barriers that don't have a check to defeat.

On a related side note, I think all the barriers that have "none" for their check to defeat are kinda designed to do something special, and if you encounter it (as in, don't evade it), there is no way to stop that something special from triggering. You might be able to beat that something special, or evade that something special (summoned skeletons, encounters with a falling bell, a chance to get items, whatever), but the game designers don't want people to just be able to stop the something special from happening entirely. Of course, this is just my guess, maybe I'm reading too much into things.

I'm under the impression it's stuck there and you can't get past it until you pass the check, but I don't have the exact card to look at.

Hey, I want to change death because I think it's simply frustrating. Combat is easy for me due to a combination of hero choices and luck getting a lot of good boons, but some of the barriers can actually be pretty nasty.

Ok, my understanding of Skelton Hoard was right, I guess I just was (and still am) confused by the sentence "Same with Skeleton Hoard", because it doesn't quite look the same to me. I get how to handle both cards, I'm not sure if I would have handled Falling Bell right before all this, (I never thought much about it, Merisiel wasn't there the one time I encountered the card). Thanks guys!

I prefer villians near the top myself, for the early closing of a location and the added blessings everywhere else. I'm still trying to get the blessing from AP2, but in my past few adventures, I keep finding the villian near the end, so I'm getting very few blessings. (I don't adjust his placement, I let him fall where fate decides.)

Maybe just clarify the rulebook to state that

The other boons can be found by exploring locations, but loot cards are only given out specifically by name as rewards for completing scenarios


Wait, if I read that correctly, when you said "Same with Skeleton Horde", wouldn't that mean you can't have Merisiel encounter the Skeleton Horde, but evade the Skeleton Minion? I can see why that can't be done with the bell, but if that can't be done with Skelton Horde, I am going to have to rethink some stuff...

Also, good to know if a different character encounters falling bell, Merisiel can evade her copy of the bell.

Roger, Lem will be getting some of my best loot cards now, so he can switch them out as needed :)

Well, this would be a lot simpler to implement than an RPG I imagine. Not that I have the skills to do it.... maybe I should go buy a book on this kind of stuff 9and study my butt off), I really would like to do something like this in my free time (for private home use only! [initially]) and then bring it to Paizo...

That above sentence has a lot of caveats... :)

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>