What is the rationale for giving the Rogue so many more skill feats than everyone else? Prior experience to me suggests that having a class be the Skills Guy is a bad idea. One of two things tends to happen:
1. The Skills Guy pays for their extra skills in combat proficiency and sits in the shadows while the combat characters do the fighting. Some might like it but it's not a great model in my view.
The one comment I have is something that might not apply in the new edition, I suppose. One of my ongoing annoyances in PF1 was that certain effects attacked a nearly custom defense value. Intimidate was a good example, targeting a creature's 10+HD+Wis.
If I was going much further with PF1, I'd be tempted to say that there should have been a more standardized value 'mental defense' or something similar. I guess they really could have just been Will Saves instead.
I started writing down stats that didn't actually appear in the game for some of my higher-level casters, such as Spell Attack for all of the +caster level +charisma attacks (Telekinesis and similar spells), but it looks like that sort of thing is already handled.
The Rot Grub wrote:
Golarion was at least nominally baked into the Core book in 1E as well: the gods of Golarion were in the Cleric chapter.
For what it's worth, if goblins were in Core but were designated as "uncommon" somehow, that would make a difference for me.
I was nervous about this whole idea of Core Goblins when I first heard it, but I wanted to wait and see what the implementation looked like. We haven't actually fit that point yet. I did hope that we would have a better in-world explanation of how the murder-rats would suddenly start to show up in adventuring parties, though.
The explanation given in the article does not satisfy.
I do love Paizo/Pathfinder goblins. I remain unsold on them as a Core playable race.
Replay is like acid to a living campaign. I saw it before in Living Forgotten Realms and the games didn't feel like they meant anything.
If replay is allowed for 1E, I'd prefer that it be delayed some amount of time after the start of 2E. My location runs weekly PFS games (2-3 tables) and the release schedule for 2E won't be nearly enough to supply us with a full 2E roster for a long time, so we'll still be running 1E (Starfinder is also an option I suppose) for quite a while and I'd prefer that 1E not go all cattywampus immediately.
Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:
As the proposal stands a 5 glyph GM could be someone with between 100 to 150 GM credits, based on the number of stars that GM has.
That seems an odd way of doing the math. It seems to me that the range of GM Credits would be 150-250. You are completely discounting the work /effort component of Pathfinder 1.0 stars which just can't be right.
For what it's worth, I've never viewed GM Stars as representing rules knowledge.
I'm generally in favor of option 2.
Dex to damage was always a ridiculous mechanic. I still support it on the Unchained Rogue because without it the class kind of falls to pieces. Hopefully the 2.0 Rogue comes out better.
I could even see something like the Rogue getting 1 point of damage per sneak attack die when sneak attack doesn't apply.
I'd like to submit Khareg Runeaxe, a Dwarven Chirurgeon Alchemist. Khareg lived in Korvosa three decades ago but currently resides in Kaer Maga. He gets drawn into the Gaedren Lamm situation via the Missing Child (son or daughter) trait avenue. The child isn't Khareg's, but belongs to a family that helped the Runeaxe clan some human generations ago. He hears about the matter via the Slatehammer clan, who were visiting Varisia and passed along the news (they are aware of the Runeaxe obligation). The humans he is helping probably don't even remember the Runeaxes, but a dwarf pays his debts.
If one of the other players is doing Missing Child (Son or Daughter) we might want to make it be the same missing child (which would likely imply that the Runeaxes owe their debt to your family).
In combat, Khareg will play a melee backup role focusing on the mutagen & infusion parts of his class, with less emphasis on the bombs.
The traits in the booklet I have access to look like they might be out of date (it refers to Gather Information checks in one spot). What's the trait bonus from Missing Child (Son or Daughter) in the anniversary book?
Ouch. I was only watching this thread loosely while trying to make my way through season 1 gameplay so I could understand what was happening better. Thought I had the weekend to finish catching up.
If you have the players you need already though, I guess I messed up. Have fun!
Sure. And that would fall under my toughness/danger as above. But not a number of HD.
I'm heavily in the camp of the GM giving out information as well. My method of deciding what information to give to the players is along the lines of imagining that they are talking to an old sage about the creature:
"The first thing you should know about ghouls is that their very touch will freeze you in place. Defend yourselves well and don't let them touch you."
"The second thing you should know about ghouls is that their bite can give you a particularly nasty disease: ghoul fever. If the disease kills you, you will rise from death as a ghoul."
That sort of thing...though not in artsy language like I used there.
Information that wouldn't have any in-world analogue, like a creature's number of HD, is generally not available at any price. Maybe a rough estimate of a creature's toughness/danger as a proxy for HD, but nothing closer than that. If a creature resists fire 5 or 10, I'll just say resistance with no number attached. If it resists 30, I'll probably say really strong resistance.
In regard to what saves a creature is good at, I usually wouldn't give out that sort of information. I do consider it completely within a "fair play" range for players to infer that sort of information from its type, however. I give out creature types without any check at all (at least, which creature type is apparent. A heucuva that looks like a human, hasn't acted like an undead and hasn't had its disguise/illusion broken would give human data even if the player makes their check - realistically they'd be rolling Local instead of Religion). This mostly facilitates allowing the players to know what kind of knowledge checks to make, but also gives them information like oozes being unflankable and uncrittable even if they have no knowledge ranks in Dungeoneering. I assume that trained adventurers know the basics of creature type data (don't use mind-affecting on vermin).
As Mudfoot says, a rough estimate of a creature's best & worst saves can be inferred from that, though not precisely.
When I see the question system used, I very frequently see players asking for information like damage reduction that is usually known or very likely from its type, like DR/cold iron on fey (although if a fey creature was randomly DR/adamantine, that would probably shoot up on the list of things my imaginary sage would mention). It is pretty useless and harms the players in comparison to my method far more often than not.
I'll pop in just to say that if you want to kill gods, there are better roleplaying systems for it out there. I played a Mythender game at Paizocon where we slew Rovagug, as one example.
d20 rules break down the further you get away from a bunch of guys marching forth out of a bar to go look for monsters to kill & treasure.
I'm converting one game I'm GMing over to Mythender now that the capabilities of the PCs in their native rules system are no longer persuasive.
I still don't understand how people are saying that the PCs are reaching frightened during the fight with Xiangnuer. Frightful Presence would make them shaken for 5d6 rounds if they fail their save because they are above 4 HD. In order to reach frightened without taking a separate fear-related action, there's got to be more.
Are people making the party shaken on the first round (or surprise attack) and then having them save again against the same frightful presence ability on the second round to get to shaken? That seems wrong, but it's the only way it is making sense in my head.
I'm new to PbP gaming, but eager to try something out!
The new Ruins of Azlant campaign looks fantastic and I've created a character, Galyth Kallios for submission (I listed him as a bard, but I'd be happy to change to any role).
If a different campaign is forthcoming that I could join, I'm interested in anything right now.
I can't see any proper justification for saying that saddlebags are a saddle requiring a [saddle] magic item slot to use. Just because the word has "saddle" as a component does not mean that it is, in any sense, a saddle. Even if that fails, you could buy a backpack instead, which doesn't require any particular body type. Best that the issue gets cleared up though.
Now that paizo is adding [saddle] slots to more animal companion categories, I consider the question of whether lacking a [saddle] slot prevents the use of mundane saddles to be answered in the affirmative. The literal interpretation was always pretty clear, and the new action is at least an indication of intent.
I don't like this ruling, and would have preferred that the lack of a [saddle] slot be used as an indication that a critter needed an exotic rather than normal saddle. But I can't justify ruling that way at this point.
Yeah, I wouldn't normally worry about it except the saddle related wording wasn't clear on that point.
Creatures without these notes cannot wear saddles or horseshoes.
I *think* this is all about magic items still, but it would be good to be sure.
As a side note, using this list as a way to say which creatures need exotic mundane saddles sounds like a good idea to me.
I have several different clerics in PFS:
* A midrange Cleric of Shelyn (Love/Defense) that sometimes engages in melee and sometimes just stays back and casts spells or channels. She's gotten fantastic use out of Calm Emotions.
* A dedicated casting cleric of Sarenrae (Fire/Restoration) that is utterly useless in melee but it about to start using Shield Other and Holy Smite and loves casting Fireball.
* A battle cleric of Cayden Cailean (Frenzy/Travel) who mostly just stabs things. I always make sure to pack around a copy of Remove Fear with him. <Insert complaint about Cayden Cailean's domains being all wrong>
I love them all, so it's hard to pick. To me, the joy of the Cleric class is picking domains and spells to play into the flavor of your chosen deity, especially so if the combination of domains works into something special. The class needs 4+ skills something fierce though.
To me, cold weather gear DOES equal protection for the purposes of cold environmental damage, and fairly clearly so. Rysky even quoted one of the relevant passages:
In conditions of severe cold or exposure (below 0° F), an unprotected character must make a Fortitude save once every 10 minutes (DC 15, +1 per previous check), taking 1d6 points of nonlethal damage on each failed save. A character who has the Survival skill may receive a bonus on this saving throw and might be able to apply this bonus to other characters as well. Characters wearing a cold weather outfit only need check once per hour for cold and exposure damage.
* Unprotected characters need to make Fortitude saves once every 10 minutes* Characters wearing cold weather outfits only need to check once per hour for cold and exposure damage.
* Clearly, then, people in cold weather outfits aren't unprotected since they don't have to make checks every 10 minutes
* I consider cold weather gear to grant protection since the characters aren't unprotected.
* Thus, protection doesn't negate the checks every 10 minutes entirely. It instead changes it to 1 hour checks.
* If there was some other available definition of protected for this section of the rules, I would go with that. There isn't. So I extend the ruling that cold weather gear grants protection from exposure to the higher and lower temperature bands as well.
Literal reading does not necessarily equate to good textual interpretation. You can't read protection out of the section by saying it is never defined and just giving up on it.
I think the nonlethal damage being dealt in this section is also cold damage. Not as clearly so, but clear enough for me.
Quoting both 666bender and SlimGauge here to focus in on a question I've had for a while relating to their 1 & 1b.
I fully agree with SlimGauge's answer on question 1. If there isn't any effect going on that protects from opportunity attacks, both the mount and the rider will provoke. Though I've never seen a GM allow a single creature to attack both before and wouldn't do so myself, I'd have a hard time coming up with a reason why they couldn't (provided Combat Reflexes of course).
1b I'm much less sure about. I think there are a couple of ways to think about this situation. I'll two examples: a Spring Attacking mount and a mount performing a full withdrawal. Assume that 5' steps are off the table and that the rider is not dismounting.
Interpretation 1: There is nothing that can be done in terms of simple movement to protect the rider from an attack of opportunity. The rider clearly moves out of a threatened square and will provoke. My objection to this is why I included a full withdrawal as an example activity. Are we sure we can say this?
Interpretation 2: The rider can leave the threatened square but only if they both perform the same action. If the rider also has Spring Attack, they can Spring Attack along with their mount. If they full withdrawal along with their mount, they can also leave the square safely. My objection to this returns to SlimGauge's answer for the #3 question: I contest the notion that both creatures can take full-round actions at the same time. They definitely can do this while charging, so I can't laugh the suggestion off completely, but I currently view that rule as an exception. This might be the cleanest solution overall if it works, though.
Interpretation 3: The mount's mode of movement protects the rider if it protects itself. There is little to no rules support for this option, which is my primary objection to it. I imagine that this gets applied all the time by players though in the full withdrawal case.
The Spring Attack case makes it easy to say "yes provoke" while the full withdrawal case makes it hard. I can't see why they both wouldn't have the same answer, though.
For the record, I think the answer to #2 is super clear. Spring Attack only provides one movement as part of the full round action. One movement speed is one movement.
My perspective is that from season 4 and after, but I've never seen the Shadow Lodge actually live up to their ideals. So for me it is a bit hard to see why people think they are missing anything. I'll make an effort anyway.
As far as I can tell, Shadow Lodge players got faction missions starting in season 3. This is after the other-Shadow Lodge went all Murder-Death-Kill on the Society, and for existing players it must have felt like the faction was reforming itself. If there is any indication that the Shadow Lodge ever did care about the Society, it exists in those faction missions. I'm not aware of any actual scenarios that ever displayed the Shadow Lodge doing its work.
By the end of season 4, however, Grandmaster Torch went crazy on the Society and the faction missions were no longer published.
From the perspective of a season 3 player:
From the perspective of a post-season 4 player:
Now that I've written it all out, I think I did a better job of explaining my own point of view than trying to understand that of the Shadow Lodge players. Hopefully there is still some value added though. If my view of the matter is mostly accurate, I can't imagine us ever getting to the point where there would be a big swell of support from the post-season-4 player base for the Shadow Lodge's return.
Ran my game on high tier. The party managed to find the Ashen Leaves supply chest, which obviously helps everything out. Even with the chest and a holy symbol tattoo on the cleric, they had some amount of difficulty with the Amphiptere attack. They stuck to the 1-2-4-6-8 path and managed to clear the whole race in two days.
The only real problem they ran into was the blood caterpillars, which were quite nasty. I had to expand out the map to give the party any room to maneuver at all. They failed their Nature checks and the party cleric charged into battle, taking 15 damage from an opportunity attack due to reach and another 1d8+3 plus a poison failure from the bristles, (which I had mentioned in describing the creatures). The fight nearly turned into a rout right there, but a few of the players decided that they had to stay to rescue the cocooned halflings. I stuck to the tactics block & had the caterpillars throw webs unless a target was already webbed or the caterpillar was already in melee reach. Fortunately, I missed on my webs a lot and the party was able to keep them at bay for the most part.
Though I'm sure I had read it earlier, I didn't really pick up on the fact that the Alchemist is full of fail and only has 1d6+1 bombs at the 4-5 tier while I was preparing. It was a sad moment when I found that I couldn't even explode the PCs a little.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
While I'm also impressed with the level of cheating PCs engage in when Venture Captains order them not to cheat, please don't turn this into a paladin thread.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I'm fairly confident that you can combine hustle and forced march. At the very least, nothing says that you can't. I did realize after I put that post up and went to work, however, that I made at least one mistake: in the hustle phases, the party should be taking a -5 on checks not related to moving (see also: the crafting I was doing and also the Perception in the jungle hex). There are probably other mistakes as well.
At least for the high tier, forced march damage really is pretty trivial. A low tier party could get hammered by it, particularly if they meet an encounter while they still have nonlethal damage on them.
Having a Cleric (or some other character that can channel + cast cure spells) for this scenario is a pretty big deal since it helps you ignore any hustle/forced march damage. The parties that try to skate by with a Ranger using a Wand of Cure Light Wounds instead are taking huge risks in this one.
Here's a sample playthrough the way we were doing it earlier. My team is L4 Valeros, Kyra, Amiri & Seoni (btw, kind of a bad team)
The party doesn't get either of the bonuses from the starting Knowledge (Nature) check. They don't manage to catch the cheaters either (Seoni was the only one who beat the Perception/Sense Motive DC and she wasn't able to make the Stealth check). Kyra was able to make a successful Diplomacy check to impress the other teams, however, and so their race times are slowed by half a day.
The party starts in Hex 1, which is Hills terrain. They plan to go through hexes 2 through 4 but want to spend the first day mostly gathering supplies. They hope to go faster on following days. Amiri has a personal progress value of 4 and the others have values of 3.
Hill Hex: 4 progress needed, 3 advantages possible, Advantage DC 15 due to high tier.
Day 1, Phase 1 (Hex 1)
Because the party's progress value was halved, the party makes 1 progress through hex 1.
Day 1, Phase 2 (Hex 2)
The party makes 1 more progress through hex 1.
Day 1, Forced March Phase (Hex 2)
The party makes 2 more progress through hex 1, completing it. Encounter A will trigger as soon as they enter hex 2, which they haven't done yet.
Fortitude saves: Valeros 11, Kyra 20, Amiri 18, Seoni 15. Valeros takes 5 nonlethal damage. Kyra cures 2 points of it with one channel and he sleeps the remainder off. Since he's both getting 8 hours of rest and is recovering all of his nonlethal damage he's no longer fatigued in two different ways.
End of Day: The party consumes 4 of their 10 food units & has 6 remaining.
Day 2, Phase 1 (Hex 2)
The party's progress value for this phase is 6. They pass Hex 2 and make 2 progress into Hex 4, which is also hills. They encounter the Amphiteres and we'll assume that they survive the encounter but that Kyra used up some healing resources.
Day 2, Phase 2 (Hex 4)
The party's progress value for this phase is 5. They pass Hex 4 and make 3 progress into Hex 6. This triggers the encounter with the Trail Hounds. They also trigger the third encounter with the caterpillars (leaving hex 4 and entering hex 6 are the same thing -
The party eats 4 of their food units and has two remaining.
Day 3, Phase 1 (Hex 6)
The party makes 1 progress and has 4 progress on the jungle hex.
Day 3, Phase 2 (Hex 6)
The party makes 5 progress, advances into hex 8 and has one progress remaining there.
Day 3, Forced March Phase (Hex 8)
The party makes the final three progress and encounters the Zuvembie. They manage to destroy the undead monstrosity and his snakes and cross the finish line a day ahead of the competition!
Fortitude Saves: Valeros 16, Kyra 20, Amiri 8, Seoni 4. Amiri takes 3 nonlethal damage and Seoni takes 3 as well. I note this mostly to point out that I wouldn't put the second set of Fortitude saves until after the combat encounter. Seoni was Fatigued at the beginning of the Zuvembie fight, however.
Note one assumption I'm making. The party failed a LOT of Craft checks, badly, without slowing down. I'm presuming that the party's progress value is only reduced if they fail against the DC of a Hex. This would exclude failures on Gathering Supplies and Crafting.
Note: I object to the fact that this party wouldn't get full gold because they never got the cache/ruins. It's a REALLY specific condition to put on gold acquisition that they have to make two specific skill checks in order like this. Not happy about that.
I'm prepping for Paizocon and did a run through of just the pursuit mechanic with another GM. On one of our runs, crafting DCs of 15 were VERY problematic. I had multiple misses of DC 13 & 14. We assumed that the party wouldn't get the gear cache.
The scenario specifically says that you can make lesser quality gear with a lower DC, but says nothing else. Does anyone have an opinion on what that ought to mean? Would they be fragile weapons instead?
Steven G. wrote:
I don't think that Paul was saying his group played high tier. I think he was saying that they were low tier but still had huge problems despite the level 3s.
I'm preparing this and after my first read, my big concern is weapons & armor for the party. If they don't discover (and keep) the weapons cache and they don't successfully Craft or Modify Tools in time, that first combat could TPK some parties.
Add to that the lack of warning that they should be prepared to go without their gear before the scenario and it's of concern to me. How has that angle gone for everyone?
Doug Davison, SmiteWorks wrote:
I'm curious. A long time ago I had a player license and played some 4th edition D&D games on Fantasy Grounds. I really liked it as a tool.
Does that player license count for this at all? Or was it specific to 4th edition? I found my old purchase email and it says it was a Fantasy Grounds II Lite License.
So far as I'm aware, there shouldn't be a big difference between giving commands to an animal companion that understands your language normally (via it knowing the language - requires the animal to have 3 Int and a rank in Linguistics) and a character giving commands to an animal companion while they have Speak With Animals up. Hence, I would assume that a normal Handle Animal check would still be required.
There is a difference in that a character using Speak With Animals can have an actual discussion with the companion while the handler of the wolf-that-knows-Celestial (or whatever) cannot. Assuming that there was sufficient time for a back-and-forth with the companion, I'd be tempted to allow a bonus on the Handle Animal check. Mostly this would be useful for pushing. Basically the same as I'd be tempted to rule for a level 11 Hunter that has Speak With Master.
Getting an animal companion off the trick system is hard (or perhaps impossible) in PFS.
I ran this tonight. Going into it I felt like I had a handle on the social conflict mechanic. Turns out, I didn't have it down nearly enough. Explaining it all to players and guiding them through potential tactics in a reasonable amount of time was just stupid and we weren't able to roleplay in places where I would have liked. We got through it, but it was not great. Worse so, since some of the possible neat tactics you could pursue that are inherent in the system seem to all vanish when you are trying to lose.
I like the social conflict mechanic, but not in a 4-hour time slot and not inverted.
* Potion of Communal Darkvision: The Darkvision spell doesn't actually help against Deeper Darkness. It's a good solution against Darkness though. Daylight is a better option. (note: scrolls of Daylight are questionable since you won't be able to see the scroll when you need to cast it)
More broadly, when I see players die it's most often to a bad crit or just general hit point damage. It's always a good idea to be prepared, but I don't think your list replaces a saved-up Raise Dead as well as you seem to think it does.
* I suggest adding a Scroll of Invisibility Purge to your list if you travel with Cleric/Orace/Inquisitor classes frequently or have good UMD availability.