RSS RSS RSS RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Paizo People

Moab_'s page

No posts. Organized Play character for asymmetricia.


Profile
Aliases
Campaigns
Posts
Threads
Search Posts

Search Moab_'s posts:


Retraining Class Levels vs Archetypes
Scarab Sages 3/5 5/5

Specific context: I want to retrain Ecclestitheurge 1/Ouat Monk 1 into Ecclestitheurge 1/Zen Archer 1.

Questions:
1. It looks like it would take 10 days to train out of Ouat Monk into regular Monk- 5 for Awaken Divinity, 5 for Spurn Tradition. This assumes that I don't have to worry about the *racial* features that are removed/added, since the Ouat Monk has class features that replace racial features. Is this assumption correct?

2. Training into Zen Archer would require replacing base Flurry of Blows with ZA's Flurry, base monk's weapon proficiencies with ZA's weapon proficiencies, base monk's base feats with ZA's base feats; (*and* posisbly retrain that feat); and finally retrain stunning fist into perfect strike. Flurry, 5; weapon prof, 5; feat feature, 5; perfect strike, 5; for a total of 20 days. Is this math correct?

My _real_ question is: Can I just retrain as though changing classes instead? This would take either 7 days or 5 days; 5 days if we treat Zen Archer as having retraining synergy with Ouat Monk.

(I can understand that retraining an archetype would be cheaper if I had more levels or the class in question; or if the archetype was one with fewer first-level-applicable changes; but that's not the case with this change.)

(Also, side commentary: This is my first multiclass build, and I found at first play at Level 2 that it was really ineffective, by which I mean likely to die and not able to greatly impact combat. By definition, I'd never get to 'free retrain' a multiclass, it makes it hard to figure this stuff out in the context of PFS.)
Scenario 43 - Pallid Plague Questions
Scarab Sages 3/5 5/5
1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi, guys. Our GM ran Pallid Plague last night, and I found it frustrating and unsatisfying in the extreme. We didn't die, but we failed both success conditions; and in this case, I think the GM made some incorrect calls. I'd appreciate if someone could check my thinking on this.

I downloaded the scenario and read through it, and have a few questions...

Spoiler:
At Tier 3-4, Laurel has Heal +11 to help treat a DC22 fort save. She has -20 due to the scenario, making it impossible for her to make the check (she can roll at most an 11). Our GM treated the disease such that *nobody* could make Heal checks to help unless we passed 10 "help Laurel" checks to *completely* eliminate (which I believe is different from the RAW "effectively eliminate") her penalty. I think this is incorrect... Any thoughts? Can Laurel attempt Heal checks while still retaining some penalty? Can PCs make heal checks with or without the cure? (If the PCs recover naturally unaided, does that count for Laurel's purposes of finding a cure?)

Furthermore, during this encounter, we divided the party a bit...

Spoiler:
The Monk and the mounted Paladin Hustled back to the garden to retrieve the body of an infected ex-druid for dissection. The GM had the second encounter, with the beggars, happen while we were gone, which was before Laurel made the cure- the PCs leaving Laurel's shop with the cure is the starting criteria for this encounter. Can someone confirm that the GM should have waited until/unless we had a cure before beginning this encounter?

Still speaking of all those rolls...

Spoiler:
The DM ruled that we could not Aid each other in making *any* of the skill checks to help Laurel, whether or not it would be possible in the context of the action (E.g., I think aiding a Heal check to dissect a corpse is reasonable; more eyes might notice something the first person missed, nevermind that during, e.g., surgery, it takes more than one person to be effective anyway.) I'd be OK with saying that the attempt to aid counts as that character's use of that skill for the purposes of the encounter, but I think making every person roll completely independently is not supported by the rules RAW and isn't explicitly called for by the scenario.

Which brings me to something in the scenario I don't agree with, but it's written that way...

Spoiler:
It's infinitely frustrating for me when the scenario overrides book rules for no reason other than, apparently, to make it harder. Many/most of the skills we were using allow for retry every day; I don't see a justification for the scenario to prohibit this. We're still dealing with a disease that deals 2-4 ability damage per day, including con damage; if it needed to be more dangerous, make the disease more dangerous instead of rewriting the rules. My $.02 on that.

Edited for grammar.