Mike Lindner's page

***** Pathfinder Society GM. 796 posts (808 including aliases). 2 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 30 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Zwordsman wrote:

Yeah, it keeps persistenting even in dying state. and no matter how many only knocks you one state down.

PersiDam is rough and tasty. Main way my alch does it.
As a hilarious sidenote. The boss monster died to persistent damage about 10mins AFTER killing the entire party. So we technically won. but also lost.
Love it.

Persistent damage generally ends after 1 minute btw. It doesn't keep going forever. Blood generally clots and people stop bleeding on their own for example.

Edit: rules source

page 621


Persistent damage runs its course and automatically

ends after a certain amount of time as fire burns out,
blood clots, and the like. The GM determines when this
occurs, but it usually takes 1 minute.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm making this a separate post because I feel it is a sufficiently separate topic. Please reconsider how PFS specific changes are made. Currently when looking at a character option I have to:

0) look at the original source (book)
1) look at the guild guide
2) look at additional resources
3) look at campaign clarifications
4) look at the FAQ
5) search for bulletin board changes by campaign staff

This makes building any character with non-core options more complex than it needs to be. I have seen many characters locally that, honestly, didn't know about one or more of the above sources of information. IMO I shouldn't have to go through a 6 step process for each and every character option in order to determine whether I can play that character in society play.

I think this leads to the perceived complexity that can push new or casual players away from the game; that is that they can't just buy a couple books and play the game as published.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:

I like the idea of using the Achievement Points to earn more PFS1 Replays. That's a good decision.

As far as the Chronicle Sheet goes, there are no spots for Achievement Points, Infamy, and Downtime. Will these be digitally tracked on the Paizo site only? I do realize that DT will not accumulate so that may not need a tracking system, but I think it might be something that should be listed on the sheet if it has different rates of earning for slow progression vs. normal progression.

I really feel that AcP should be listed on the Chronicle Sheets for similar reasons.

I fully agree. Every number that a player needs to keep track of should be on the chronicle sheet. I don't like the SFS faction system where you may have to look through your chronicle stack to figure out how much prestige you have earned with a particular faction.

What it comes down to is that I think every accumulating number that a player has to keep track of should be on the chronicle sheet. If that is 10 numbers then there should be a field for each and every one of them. If that is problematic then I think that is an indication that tracking that many numbers is problematic. If supporting keeping track of it is a problem that I would argue that it is problematic inherently.

While I generally like the new chronicle design I strong feel that the amount of numbers players are expected to track ignores key "human factors" design elements, i.e. that people will be turned off by the amount of "math" that the campaign expects of them, even if it is simple addition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Will Huston wrote:

So as part of being a prepared PFS gm at a local gaming store, my GM kit includes a little baggie with my 10 reserved organized play numbers that I'll hand to a new player. I tell them to go to paizo.com, register an account and use the confirmation code, etc. A lot of people play one or two games, decide "hey, maybe this isn't for me" and never do it. A lot of people take the card, make an account and claim their PFS number. Neither of those groups have an issue with this system. But there's a third group of people who take the card, make a character and play regularly but have never made paizo account and never have used the confirmation code.

Now, they've definitely lost the card with the confirmation code on it. How will it work for them if they want to play PFS2e? Should they start over with a new PFS number? Is there a way to give them that number without the confirmation code?

Here's one idea. Print two copies and write the person's name on the copy you keep. So long as you are around you can always go back and provide that confirmation number when the player finally gets around to wanting to register online.

It looks like the innate spells entry could use some line breaks. I feel the information density is too high for one line. It will be interesting to see it in practice.

I would also like to echo the idea to put the normal identification DC in the stat block.


Speaking of muppets, I'm just going to leave this here.

muppet song

Enjoy having that in your head the rest of the day.

Because I love watching the world burn.

As to the question, I would say generally yes, it could prevent the crit, turning it into a regular hit. I would say though that the fort save or die would still occur. Allowing the fortification to take effect is especially important if the character is a PC. Just give them the benefit of the doubt. There no sense possibly creating argument, animosity, or resentment over a d20 roll.


Auke Teeninga wrote:
Tallow wrote:

Yes, for 3 reasons that I'm still pretty bitter about.

1) Mustering was really terrible. Our table didn't sit until 45 minutes into the slot, so we lost 45 minutes of time to complete the mission. We would have likely completed the mission just fine if we'd had that 45 minutes.

2) Our GM was late, sick, had no voice, and generally did not have enough energy to truly run the game in a timely fashion. Secondly, it was fairly obvious that the adventure was not fully written, and the GM had trouble understanding much of it. I'm not sure how many GMs essentially ran this cold because it wasn't given to them until pretty late in the process. But not being able to hear the GM (cause he was sick with no voice) and the GM not being prepared enough (probably no fault of his) made for a fairly poor experience.

3) Boxed Text killed all characters if they didn't make it out in time. Even if they had methods like Plane Shift or Shadow Walk that could have done so. So we lost 45 minutes, had a GM that wasn't prepared and was unenergetic to keep things moving, and we died to boxed Text.

Otherwise, it was one of my favorite scenarios because of the puzzles! I love puzzles. We solved all the puzzles. And then to have it end so anticlimactically, largely due to the fact that we started late and were not given that time to finish, really sucked.

I had a similair experience.

We lost 60 minutes due to mustering.
It was very hard to hear everyone at the table.
Near the end the GM said that because we started late, he'd allow us to do another encounter. We succesfully completed it, time was called, but the GM gave us the extra time he promised us in which we escaped. He went to HQ to report the table and came back telling us we had all died.

Some of the players were so upset they didn't realise they had enough prestige to get raised due to a certain boon. They...

The table I was at for part 1 was good and bad. At the point the room took a break partway through we were apparently far ahead of most other tables (level 10-11). However, after the break the GM had clearly not prepped the remainder of the scenario properly. There was a combat in which the GM rolled the whole thing back ~20 minutes into the fight. Took probably 5-10 minutes just to reset, then start the fight completely over. The whole table was pissed off because the missed points likely cost us getting to part 2.

After hearing about the debacle of part 2 though I'm actually glad we didn't do it.

We still talk about how badly that table was run to this day.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
But probably not how the database is setup.

I'm a software developer. Changing the key on the table from character number to (campaign, character number) shouldn't be such a big deal to do something that makes the customer experience worse.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

People waving the flag about weight over bulk should look up the idea of cognitive load.

Bulk has way less cognitive load than weight, and requires you to look up a separate table to work out their carrying capacity.

Every item you pick up you have to look up the weight (is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?)
Every time you get a bull’s strength, strength mutagen or other temporary strength enhancement its back to the table.

The cognitive load of large numbers is real. So encumbrance is the rule that gets skipped or ignored the most. Which enhances the value of melee dexterity builds.

You personally might find encumbrance very easy to track. Bully for you. However, you aren’t everybody, and for my players encumbrance has always been easier to track. I already houseruled something similar in my game and while dexterity builds were still popular, strength/heavy armor builds started seeing more play again.

I think the bulk system doesn't and can't fix one thing you mentioned: having to keep an eye on your encumbrance when you are near the limit. If I am at 9+B out of 10 max I still have to check everything I pick up to see if it will put me over the limit. Players who push up against the limits are going to have to pay close attention to those limits, no matter how they are expressed.

I will agree that the current PF1 encumbrance system is far too fiddly.

From the Adventuring Gear Page From Air Bladder to Bell there are 11 unique weights listed among items.

For Bulk the majority of those would be considered Light Bulk (or 0.1) or 1 bulk (maybe 2 bulk for Alchemist's kit). Which means that if you're at 9 bulk you're either going to pick up small stuff, or only one Bulky item and be done. And it's fairly intuitive to guess what kind of bulk an item is based on what it is.

Right but 10 light items equals 1 bulky item, the same as Starfinder if I understand correctly. So if I want to pick up 3 light items I still have to pay attention to whether I already have 8 light items, since that would add another bulk. So those near the limit still have to carefully track everything they have. They still have to add up every single thing on their character sheet.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
That said, I do hope they have Alchemists making coffee. That would just be entirely too amusing. I could very well see a line of Goblin-run restaurants named Sparkbucks and offering coffee that will grow hair on your fingernails, peel paint from a house ten feet away, and keep you...

I do not want to go to your Pathfinder Sparkbucks. "That will be 4 silver pieces and a small skin sample." "What?!" "You did ask for the special, did you not?"

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
Moreover, this immediately does away with the problem for Small characters where we had to remember to divide the weight by 2. Instead, bulk is the same, it just fits automatically with character size.
Is this actually a boon of bulk or starfinder?

I have played a number of small characters in Pathfinder. I am also particular enough to carefully track encumbrance even when no one is paying attention. This is absolutely an improvement. Take a look at the tables in the books. Some items are 1/4 weight, some are 1/2 weight, some are full weight. Many items are not clear at all whether the weight should be adjusted for small characters (hello magic items). Then you also have to take max encumbrance and multiply by 3/4. It sucks, a lot. Even as careful as I am, probably more so than 95% of PF players, I am sure that my calculations have at least one inarguable error in them.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

People waving the flag about weight over bulk should look up the idea of cognitive load.

Bulk has way less cognitive load than weight, and requires you to look up a separate table to work out their carrying capacity.

Every item you pick up you have to look up the weight (is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?)
Every time you get a bull’s strength, strength mutagen or other temporary strength enhancement its back to the table.

The cognitive load of large numbers is real. So encumbrance is the rule that gets skipped or ignored the most. Which enhances the value of melee dexterity builds.

You personally might find encumbrance very easy to track. Bully for you. However, you aren’t everybody, and for my players encumbrance has always been easier to track. I already houseruled something similar in my game and while dexterity builds were still popular, strength/heavy armor builds started seeing more play again.

I think the bulk system doesn't and can't fix one thing you mentioned: having to keep an eye on your encumbrance when you are near the limit. If I am at 9+B out of 10 max I still have to check everything I pick up to see if it will put me over the limit. Players who push up against the limits are going to have to pay close attention to those limits, no matter how they are expressed.

I will agree that the current PF1 encumbrance system is far too fiddly.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Anguish wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
I'm kinda surprised there are people that prefer weight to bulk.

Bulk can be learned, but shouldn't need to be. Okay, so small stuff is negligible unless you have enough of them and then they become a bulk. How is this really better? If you're going to play the encumbrance game, you still need to keep track of how many not-quite-a-bulk items you have, to figure out how many bulks they are in total.

I'm not honestly sure exactly why (I have a theory I'll mention after this sentence is finished), but a bit of A/B testing has shown that people are finding Bulk easier/less burdensome to use and actually using it, whereas they were more likely to gloss over weight. Given that Strength has very little unique to it, anything that strengthens people's likelihood to keep track of one of the things Strength does is a good thing. My theory is that it's because of the magnitude of the numbers. In several situations, people are more easily able to keep track of smaller integers up to a certain point than larger ones (especially single digits and maybe the teens), and they seem less intimidating and more accessible on a subconscious level. So it could be that?

I see bulk as roman numerals for weight. So in my mind that is just added complexity. I would prefer to skip the L vs. B and just convert that to numbers from the get-go. So L = 1, B = 10, and multiply Str * 10 for maximum you can carry (if I remember that right). For a base Str 10 character that even makes what you are carrying a direct percentage so it's easy to grasp. It still eliminates all fractions and numbers beyond 1 or 10 for individual items.

Edit: To add to this and clarify I do like the "bulk" terminology. Just expressed as 1 bulk for small things vs. 10 bulk for more encumbering things. So if I count the number of 1 bulk items, say 14, and add the number of 10 bulk items, say 2, the math is very easy: 14 + 10 + 10. I don't have to remember that 10 L's equals 1 B, divide the total number of L's by 10 (a decimal likely), then add to the B's - instead simply add up the integers.

I am a very analytical person though that is inclined towards math, so I can hardly say whether the average player, especially new player, would find it easier or more intuitive.

I really hope that a more mindchemist style is fully accounted for in the base rules. Especially with the flavor changes. A more science-y based class rather than magic seems to fit with enhancing their own mental abilities even more than the mindchemist archetype. I feel like the strong mutagen focus and flavor of the PF1 alchemist pigeon holes them into the Jekyll and Hyde stereotype too much and I hope that PF2 does not repeat that.

I think my ideal would be for the PF2 mutagen to combine the PF1 mutagen and cognatogen. Simply pick which usage is best for your character. If combining the two is too powerful, then make both mutagen and cognatogen class feats where the 5th level ability grants one of them as a bonus class feat.


Douglas Edwards wrote:

Regarding character numbering, I have been finding that for SFS that this is really unintuitive for new players.

Is there maybe some way to shift 1e characters to be 2000+number and allow 2e to occupy the single and double digits?

I think it would be best to just give up on having unique character numbers across different games. Simply start over with -1. It's seems very straightforward for players to know that their Pathfinder 1E -3 is different than their 2E -3 since they are different campaigns.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:
What about call the "general feats" as feats, and the "class feats" as (the name of the class) talents? Just like rogue talents, cleric talents, fighter talents... Seems more player-friendly.

First off, please do give them different names. I like talents instead of class feats since it's familiar to existing Pathfinder players as a type of class feature.


What is more important for me than naming though is the uniqueness of class feats. Distilled down what I really want are for class feats to be truly iconic for that class. A small, selective list that won't end up being available to many other classes, if any others, ever. I hope that the general feats, gated via the proficiency system, will cover almost all of what are class features in 1E. When half a dozen classes end up with access to the same class feature it no longer matters as much what class one chooses, and this is a shame.

Smite evil is something I would see as a paladin class feat (or talent if using that name). In contrast channel energy would be a general feat with a proficiency requirement. Channel energy doesn't belong as a class feat as evidenced by how many 1E classes now have access to it - it is hardly cleric specific. Even domains are available to plenty more classes than just clerics, so while having domain abilities might be a general feat a cleric might power that up with a cleric-only feat that has the domain feat as a prerequisite.

Why all this? For one example I compared a sorcerer with the psychic bloodline to the psychic class and in my estimation the sorcerer was generally a better psychic caster. In that comparison there wasn't anything about the psychic class that made it stand out as something unique to me, worth playing with its own class identity. Every class should have a unique identity that doesn't (and won't in the future) get eclipsed or subsumed by some other class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played a human spacefarer envoy (phrenic adept) in the first part of Dead Suns yesterday. The archetype is what I needed to make a character concept a reality. So far I'm liking it and don't feel that I'm giving up too much for the archetype. I went with the clever feint envoy improvisation at first level which worked out well - it allows making an enemy flat footed to everyone's attacks for a round. During combat I asked whether the party would rather I attack or use clever feint and the answer was always feint. Hopefully that still holds up as we level up and I start missing out on more improvisations for abilities that don't benefit the party as a whole. On the other hand having a party face with telepathy may end up being very useful.

So while the archetype does remove a lot of the meat from most classes I do think it can make certain characters possible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I finally bothered to write up my own process for printing maps so I figured I'd share it.

This is my method for printing Pathfinder and Starfinder maps. This involves saving the maps as individual PDFs with the image scaling information so that they can be printed at the correct scale automatically. I normally print them spread across multiple pages, trim the edges off, and tape them together. This has also worked successfully for taking the PDF to a print service that does large format printing such as Office Depot.

Extract the image from the adventure
- Open the adventure PDF in Acrobat Reader
- Select the map
- Edit > Copy (ctrl-C)

Open IrfanView [1]
Edit > Paste
Calculate the DPI for the image
- Select a large area, lining up the edges of the selection to the grid lines on the map
- Look at the title bar to find out the number of pixels you selected
- Count the number of grid squares you selected on the map
- Divine the number of pixels by the number of grid squares. Make sure to do the calculation for both the horizontal and vertical directions as they are not always the same. This is the DPI (pixels per inch).
Update the DPI for the image
- Image > Information...
- Change the DPI from the default values and click the Change button.
- Click OK
If you only want to print part of the map you can adjust that now. I use the crop tool to cut off unnecessary edges for example.
Save the image
- File > Save as...
- Enter a file name
- Change the file type in the "Save as type" dropdown to "PDF - Portable Document Format"
- Click Save
- If an additional dialog appears, simply click Save

Print the map
- Open the PDF you created in Acrobat Reader
- File > Print...
- In the Page Sizing & Handling section click the Poster button
- Adjust any other printing settings as needed
- Click the Print button

[1] http://www.irfanview.com/ This is a freeware image viewer with some basic image editing built in as well. You can download the zip file if you don't have admin privileges to install it normally.

I do not have access to the new 4-5 star exclusive scenario Pathfinder Society Scenario #7–99: Through Maelstrom Rift. If that could be fixed I would appreciate it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's the open question of whether one can ready to interrupt a spell as it is being cast.

Moofed wrote:
I hope there is a "lite" version of the PDF coming, like what is available for the Pathfinder rulebooks. 143MB is too big for Google Drive to display in the browser.

I would also like a lite version of the PDF. On a similar note I would like a soft cover pocket edition of the physical book.


The repeatable tag does not appear on the product page for the quest. Thank you for letting me know it is on the adventure


I have played the Into the Unknown quests and would like to replay them with a another character. I wasn't able to figure out whether I can do so when looking at the Guild Guide. I feel like I missed something in there. Is this allowed?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technomancers get spellshot (8th level) to deliver an area spell with a ranged weapon, seeking shot (11th level) to hit people with cover or concealment, phase shot (14th level) to shoot through barriers.

I'm going to make my first character a technomancer sniper, hopefully it works out in play.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Just forcably wake casters up every six hours. Can't regan spells. For technomancers you just take their spellbook thingie away from them and they're out. I mean, I know the book says they can make a new one, but I as a GM would say that pre-supposes that they can get their hands on. . . Well, anything useful. I mean I'd rule that you can't make a spellbook thingie out of a fork tine and a bar of soap.

A technomancer does not need to have a spell cache (I assume that's what you are referring to) to rcast a spell. It simply allows them to cast an extra spell per day similar to a Pathfinder wizard's arcane bond.

BraveRift wrote:

Haha, I hadn't considered running *at* a ranged assailant as a readied action, but since moving doesn't damage anyone on its own, I'd probably rule that it can/should happen before the trigger resolves. Not sure exactly what that would do to ranged attacks/spells targeting you... Does a spell/grenade/bullet aimed at you or your space get a chance to target you at the new position, or is its position fixed before the movement is resolved? I guess I'd probably rule that, at least generally speaking, effects targeting a space don't "follow," but effects targeting a person do. So you could dodge a Fireball, but not a bullet (unless you got out of line of sight, or behind cover or something).

I think I'd consider Reflective Armor to be purely defensive. You're protecting yourself--it is kind of the opponent's fault if they actually hit you, but there's some chance that they might not, depending on the trigger.

FWIW, I agree that there's a lot of room for interpretation in all this, I'm just offering what I think would be a reasonable ruling given the wording.

I think running towards someone is not a defensive action. You are moving to threaten them. Getting an attack of opportunity on them when you otherwise could not is not defensive, it's offensive.

Blackstorm wrote:
Voss wrote:

What needs clarification? Damage is damage. Bleeding continues until a healing effect or medicine check.

There isn't any ambiguity in the rules.

A healing effect stop something that affect something you never heal via that healing effect. And since when I cast mystic cure I can redirect to me any residual hp left, while you bleed on stamina, I can stop your stmaina and give myself a full cure. So I never healed you by a single point, but somehow I healed you from a the blood flowing outside your body.

Really you can't see ambiguity or inconsistence?


Bendack wrote:

Is the Pathfinder conversion section of the core book being written off for Additional Resources, or just omitted in its entirety? It seems weird that it would be out and out ignored as it is in the current document.

Hopefully any conversions will be done by the adventure author or developer. In the same way that PFS scenarios now include the stat blocks for the creatures within the scenario, I am hopeful that they will continue that practice with SFS. So you shouldn't need to do Pathfinder to Starfinder conversions yourself for society play (I hope).

This product page doesn't seem discoverable via searching for it. Searching for products with starfinder guide doesn't find anything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guild Guide page 18 wrote:
If the PCs buy an item using pooled money that they do not use during the adventure, one PC may purchase the item at the end of the adventure, paying the item’s full cost. If no PC wants to purchase the item, the PC must sell the item back for 10% value, reimbursing each PC for half of what she paid into the pool.

The way I read this if no one wants the item one PC is forced to buy the item at full price, sell it back at 10%, then reimburse the other PCs. This doesn't make sense though. Either a) more than the purchase price ends up being paid for the item, if the pooled money isn't refunded when one PC individually buys the item at full price; or b) the money the other PCs is refunded since one PC is paying the full purchase price, but then the language about reimbursing them for 50% doesn't make sense.

The other way to read it that "the PC must sell" is a typo and should be "the PCs must sell", that is, they sell it back collectively. However, this doesn't work because it is impossible to reimburse 50% of what people paid when only 10% is recovered. Maybe this is a typo as a result of copying language from Pathfinder and it's supposed to be that the item is collectively sold back and 10% of what people paid is reimbursed.

Let's do some math.

3 PCs pool money to buy an item with a price of 1000:
A puts in 500
B puts in 300
C puts in 200

The item isn't used and no one wants it. If one PC has to buy the item, someone has to buy it for 1000 and sell it back for 100, losing 900, then in addition reimbursing the other PCs 50% of what they originally put in. Even if that buying for 1000 includes the pooled money it still ends up being an uneven split.

If PC A buys it:
A ends up being out 650 (130% of what they originally put in); spent: 500 original commitment - 100 recovered from sale + 150 reimbursing PC B + 100 reimbursing PC C
B ends up being out 150 (50% of what they originally put in)
C ends up being out 100 (50% of what they originally put in)

If PC B buys it:
A ends up being out 150 (50% of what they originally put in)
B ends up being out 550 (183% of what they originally put in); spent: 300 original commitment - 100 recovered from sale + 250 reimbursing PC B + 100 reimbursing PC C
C ends up being out 100 (50% of what they originally put in)

If PC C buys it:
A ends up being out 150 (50% of what they originally put in)
B ends up being out 100 (50% of what they originally put in)
C ends up being out 500 (250% of what they originally put in); spent: 200 original commitment - 100 recovered from sale + 250 reimbursing PC B + 150 reimbursing PC C

This seems like a bad rule to me. If no one wants the item it shouldn't be forced onto one PC to buy it then reimburse the other PCs because that can result in them being out even more money. No one is going to want to be the person to take the financial hit of reimbursing the other PCs. This is only going to create confusion in understanding the rules due to the uneven result, and strife between players as arguments erupt over who should have to pay more than their original commitment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

My headcanon says that, during the Gap, somebody actually solved the mystery of Aroden's death despite a conspiracty by all of the deities to keep the details of that incident secret. Once that secret was discovered, the gods decided that they needed to wipe the memories and records of anyone who knew that secret and the proceeded to do the same with any memories or records that would permit that secret to be learned again.

It turned out that there was some incontrovertible evidence in the matter on Golarion that could be concealed only by removing Golarion itself from the known universe.

Maybe Aroden escaped whatever prison he was in and finally returned to Golarion. His long delayed promise to start a golden age of humanity. The other Gods didn't want humanity running rampant and said "sure, you can have your golden age on Golarion, but you don't get to do it around here." Poof off to a pocket dimension sealed away at the end of the universe.

Is Rovagug an active deity in Starfinder? Maybe he managed to escape so they got rid of the entire planet and wiped memories to prevent anyone from finding out what happened to it - and letting Rovagug out from his new prison.

81: Why did I join the Starfinder Society? I got fired from my job as a waiter for wearing too many pieces of flair. (Shirren obsessed with his flair)

rknop wrote:

A pity we don't like the metric system.

I haven't found anywhere other than Pathfinder and Starfinder that suggests "1-1/2" equals "1+1/2".

I'm particularly confused why they do this given that there are glyphs for ½. Why not just use the glyph and write "1½"? That fits the typographic standard, and doesn't introduce something that looks like subtraction.

A good reason not to use the specific glyph is that the text isn't just going to be printed professionally. If you use it, then you are at the mercy of every PDF reader getting it right (and legible on every device) or your customers will complain. They won't complain to the PDF software author, but to you, the one who chose to use that glyph instead of an easy to read way of presenting the info.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gilfalas wrote:

OK so the largest starships average in at shy of 3 miles long but are only about 8000 tons?

By way of real world comparisons, the newest US carrier the Gerald Ford is only 1,092 feet long and it displaces more than 100,000 tons.

Has lightweight super materials really gotten that good or are there some 0's missing in that chart? :-)

Easy, weight depends on gravity. Clearly those are Starfinder tons, not Earth tons.

Did you just assume my gravity?

It seems like that map would make a nice reference at the table. Could you provide a higher resolution version of that map suitable for printing?


You just fix it on the next chronicle sheet.


An alchemist can't brew potions, but can craft alchemical items with craft (alchemy).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer that Paizo release less rules and setting books altogether, not just one or the other. I feel that from the get-go Pathfinder development has been primarily focused on getting books out the door quickly. There's two aspects to this: quality and quantity.

In terms of quality just look at the rough edges in the rules in the CRB for example. I've read some of the commentary about its development where there were areas they wanted to improve but couldn't without delaying its release. Every GM and player continues to be impacted by those decisions coming on a decade later and the whole product line suffers as well. The adventurer's armory debacle should have been a wake up call. In the years since there have been a number more books, some flagship hardcover books, that have had serious quality issues showing that these lessons aren't been taken to heart.

In terms of quantity there are quite simply too many books to even read. I remember seeing a quote from one of the main developers who said that even they don't read every Pathfinder book because there are just too many. No game publisher can provide a consistent product, consistent in lore as well as self-consistent rules, when no one publishing it can keep track of everything. The fact that multiple books have been published covering the exact same topics shows a lack of cohesive vision in game design where even setting lore has to be corrected.

My desires are selfish. I don't care how much money Paizo makes so long as they stay in business. While the ship seems to have sailed for Pathfinder, with Starfinder offering a chance to reset things I want them to use a more deliberate method of creating both rules and setting books, with a slower pace of setting and rules books releases. I also want what's broken fixed through errata, not publishing optional rules in later books that change fundamental aspects of the game. Especially considering that society play, the games public marketing, will never use those fixes, e.g. changes to the Pathfinder stealth rules.

All that said, I do really like Pathfinder the game system as well as the setting. The Inner Sea World Guide is a great book for example. I'm hopeful that Starfinder finds a better path forward.


The convention around here is to allow one roll with the highest bonus. I like the idea of one d20 roll and getting the benefit of all the results that one roll would give. I think I'll give that a try when GMing.


Tim Emrick wrote:
Tim Emrick wrote:
And I just recently bought People of the Sands, and now want to play a character who is aiming for the living monolith prestige class. I'm currently thinking an Osirion-born oread brawler, in large part because I haven't played any of the hybrid classes yet.
I got to play this character for the first time at PFS last night. So far, his most glorious moment is delivering a combat-ending critical hit with his unarmed strike while enlarged, grappled, and at 1 hp.

That's a pretty magnificent start. I hope the character has many more victories just as exciting as that sounds. My second character is a living monolith and he has been great fun to play.


Fromper wrote:

My grippli character is a Fiend Keeper Medium. I just love the fluff on that archetype. Given the dex bonus, str penalty, and small size, I was originally thinking TWF finesse build, too. But I actually changed my mind and decided to go strength based with a two handed weapon, after doing the math to make sure it would work. But my class gives enough bonuses to make up for only having 14 str. I don't know how (or if) that would work out for a vigilante.

I love the grippli race. I actually have two more grippli boons (I GMed in two local conventions and a PBP game day in the same 3 month period). I was thinking of giving/trading them away, but I think I'll keep at least one of them to make a second grippli for myself.

That's a really cool archetype. There are so many great grippli characters a person can make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The character idea that I'm most excited to play is a grippli vigilante (faceless enforcer) who dual-wields kukris. The idea of a very small hellknight whirling around with 4 inch blades amuses me too much.

rknop wrote:
When I don't know what to buy, I like to fall back on two immovable rods and a hammock.

Sounds like someone needs a caver's hammock. It will leave you enough gold left over to get a robe of infinite twine, an autonomous cartographer, and a field scrivener's desk for those who truly wish to explore, report, and relax.

DigitalMage wrote:

Thanks for the ideas so far.

The druid is a bit of an all rounder, maxed out Diplomacy, Grapple feats, and several defaults sets of spells for whatever role is needed (healer, combat, magical support, survival). His dog does go into combat.

What books are Wild Armour Enchantment and Greater Dire Collar in? I have core, APG, Seekers of Secrets, PFS Field Guide, and a few other slim books.

For someone who likes grappling anaconda's coils is a nice belt in that it gives +2 Str and constrict.


Rysky wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
The Society doesn't supercede Deitys and codes. It's a neutral organization and only people who can work with that would join in the first place.
That's why I was asking if the Society was upfront when they tell people (or the GM telling anew player) hey you're going to have to work with people you would normally try to kill. And not dance around with the term "unsavory" but straight up tell the Pharasmin they're going to have to work with Undead creating Necromancers occasionally.

The Pathfinder Society is a well-known, world wide organization. One whose reputation is sketchy enough that they aren't welcome at all in certain entire countries. Anyone who seeks the society out to join would have a plethora of information available about the organization as well as its goals and methods. This is especially true once a character reaches Absalom to petition at the grand lodge.

Even after joining the normal assumption is (or at least was, not sure of the current canon) that a Pathfinder has spent three years voluntarily training to be a field agent in the grand lodge. The grand lodge has a building on site specifically for necromancers. This is not a secret. Most field agents commit premeditated murder on a regular basis. If the character has moral objections to their fellow agents or the society in general, then they should have left the society well before being sent on any mission, i.e. the player should save that character for a home game.

Any character brought to a PFS table should be willing to work with others in service of the society and its goals, even if they choose to find alternative problem solving methods sometimes to satisfy their moral code.


Personally I don't find having one of my characters carry half a dozen large weapons any more ridiculous than one of my characters being a paladin, bloodrager, samurai, fighter, brawler, hellknight, knight of ozem, ulfen guard, golden legionnaire, steel falcon, and horizon walker (yes it can be done).


Will Huston wrote:

So, when I look at my local lodge, since we have a small group where almost all of them are new to PFS, Pathfinder and in some cases RPGs, I have a very skewed view.

I haven't seen anyone use anything out of Ultimate Combat. Or Intrigue. A number of them have the ACG or APG, because when they ask what books are good, I usually say start with one of those two. (or Unchained if the person's interested in Rogues)

Obviously when I go to the larger more established lodge 50 minutes away, it changes.

Though (and I'd have to check my character notes), I'm not sure if I've played alongside a single-classed wizard, even at Gen Con.

If you remember a partially translucent sylph wizard (Vasish), then you have.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I simply buy my wands of infernal healing from wizards with eschew materials.


Muse. wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Plus, a discounted Ring of Protection +2 (4000gp) may seem like a great deal, but if you want to upgrade to the +3 version (18000gp) you still have to pay the full difference.

Any savings are only temporary.

but what about upgrading from a Ring of Protection +1 to a discounted Ring of Protection +2? We would just pay the difference right? .... or would we have to buy the discounted Ring of Protection +2 as a unit without upgrading?

Or for that matter, could you even upgrade a discounted Ring of Protection +2 to a +3 ring?

You can upgrade from an item on a chronicle sheet, but you cannot upgrade to it. So if there is a +1 flaming greataxe on a chronicle you cannot upgrade the +1 greataxe you already have using the chronicle sheet for access to it. You can purchase it from the chronicle then upgrade it to a +1 flaming gnome bane greataxe (with the normal fame restrictions to upgrade it).

1 to 50 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>