Markon's page

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.

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.

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

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qehn?Odds-of-encountering-a-current-scenario-c 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 :)

Hey guys, I am sure the answer to this is somewhere, but I'm in the military and away from all my books (and very low on free time). The situation: I'm playing a wizard in a campaign with some friends (when we can), and we are following all the rules for pathfinder society. So, my question: Can I use the money from adventures to add spells to my spellbook between adventures, assuming that some NPC or whomever sells me access between adventures? Or can I only learn spells from scrolls and spellbooks found during adventures (I know the 2 automatic spells a level are an exception to this).

The guy DMing it seems to think I can only get access to spells from spellbooks, but considering how I just got access to second level spells, and the only spellbook we have found only had about 2 second levels spells, both from my prohibited schools.... it just doesn't sound like a good way to run wizards, making them be that dependent on loot for their core class feature. Alright, thanks for the assistance!