Nexus 6's page

Nexus 6 wrote:

How did the August 20th game go Alex?

Um, it won't happen for another two weeks yet, is how it happened ;)

BrOp (Alex)

Ooops. July melded with August for me. Too many bottles of Coca Cola as a child.

I've confirmed a time and place. My first Pathfinder Society game in Portland is scheduled for August 20th at Other World Games in Hillsdale from 6:30 to 11. That should give us plenty of time to finish any last bits of character creation and run through the scenario.

Exact scenario TBD, but it will definitely be Tier 1-2 designed for brand new PCs.

Please muster in this thread OR at the Portland Dungeons and Dragons Meetup Group. We currently have three seats left at the table for the 20th.

How did the August 20th game go Alex?

ArVagor wrote:

is a fair approximation for the formula in the table, assuming you receive a max of 2 PA each adventure...

It's been said more than a few times assuming 2 PA each adventure is a mistake :)

Aside from that, what do you mean it's unclear weather I can:

1) Spend 2 PA to get a CLW wand (anytime you are in a city > 5000 people and have 2 PA).
2) Spend 750 gold to get a CLW wand (anytime after you have 750 gold and 9 TPA).
3) Spend 750 gold to get a CLW wand off your Chronicle (anytime after you have 750 gold and a Chronicle that lists the wand).

/sarcasm :D

I think, as you said, it all depends on the weather.

Quick question for you Jason. I have looked on the boards for an answer but all I have found are folks suggesting the wording be changed.I noticed that the Bravery ability that fighters aquire at 2nd has no descriptor so does that mean it would stack with a morale based bonuses? Or should it be considered a morale bonus and therefore not stack with other morale bonuses? I don't mean to sound like a rules lawyer but with the wording as written in the Beta it should stack with a morale bonus like the one provided say by a Bard or Paladin. I may have missed the clarification somewhere on the boards but I am not finding it thus far.

Wow alot of number crutching going on. I play fighters all the time. Regardless of whether you are a fan of Dex based fighters or Muscle car fighters. I tend to play fighters and enjoy them because feats are their spells. No other class gets the abundance of feat choices so consistently. Feats are your friends. If you could be a 10th lvl fighter at 1st level then there would be no point in playing anything else. I think, from a humble roleplaying perspective, You need to decide what your field of expertise will be(TW Fighter, Ranged Figher, Big weapon fighter) and focus on that. This is a team sport not boxing...snicker. I play ranged fighters as well and have saved my parties butt on many an occasion. Same holds true with my straight melee. Being specific is the key to success with a fighter even before you crunch those numbers.

Welcome to the Errata and Typos thread for the Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger portions of the classes chaper. If you spot any typos or rules that need errata in this section, please post them to this thread. Note that this is not a thread for discussing rules changes, only obvious mistakes or unclear rules. We have done our best to make these chapters as clean as possible, but 10,000 eyes are better than 12. Thanks for your help.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

This may or may not be the place to ask this in terms of the fighter. If it is not then I apologize in advance. I noticed that the Bravery ability that fighters aquire at 2nd has no descriptor so does that mean it would stack with a morale based bonus related to fear? Or should it be considered a morale bonus and therefore not stack with other morale bonuses?

When I played Silent Tide it was my first Mod. with PFS. At the time the DM indicated to us there were Acts and money would be alotted between acts. We would have immediate access to that cash to buy items in game and we would deduct that amount from our perspective AR at the end of the mod. I have not seen that since the first mod. Now I am about to DM the fourth installment Mists of Mwangi. Mind you I already played it. In that mod. they have acts and it specifically says how much money the players should be awarded or not at the end of each Act. My DM for that mod. never mentioned we could use the money in game as needed between Acts. So my question is: Are some of the mods., particularly the ones structured like 1 and 5, designed to allow players access to there cashflow in game between Acts. Or did the DM misinterpret the structure of the mod in game 1. This question is specifically for PFS Paizo staff but any thoughts are appreciated.

Deussu wrote:

Wait, what?! No one's faction quest requires Darcy to be left alive! You've had some serious misreading there, sir. Or then the DM made a mistake, or the player understood his quest wrong.

I think the issue here is faction goals (kill Darcy) conflicting with another character's alignment (killing bad), not two faction alignments conflicting.

Parden Navdi. That is correct the goals of the faction quests were not conflicting. The goals of the characters(Through the alignment sensibilities) however did in fact conflict with several of the faction quests. This does also go deeper than alignment. The Andorian Fighter in question had an alignment of NG and was asked to cut the man's heart out as well as take his ring. Had each persons faction quest taken them in a direction where some one had to be assassinated then regardless of their alignment they would have done what was requested because they would have had the rightous justice of a higher calling informing their choice. There is some potentially grey area there of how do you pair people of radically different backrounds together when all you have keeping them together is a general quest while also giving them a quest that plays into their immediate personal goal. The preverbial god before country syndrome. I think this played out in my example. One could argue well your first priority is to finish the quest given you by the PFS. From a roleplaying perspective one might reasonably think "Well my nation is involved with PFS because they understand what needs to be done but when my country says they need me then I must make it work. Otherwise they would not trust me with such tasks." If you have the shot take it sort of thing. Thus never realizing what the consequences of your actions within the party might be. In the first mod I played ,Silent Tide, the secondary quest was quite clear in letting me know my goal was to remain incognito from party members. This one never mentioned such secrecy. I suspect the Andoran quest didn't say "make sure no one sees you take the item or be sure to make his death look like an accident should he not die in battle.

So I guess in these instances the DM must take control of the situation and make sure that the spirit of the game is maintained while still providing all players at least one opportunity to accomplish their secondary objective.

Ya sounds look you playing with me today but it was Androan that wanted to kill him and take his signet ring...

Was it Andorian? Well I stand corrected...Snicker. I apologize to all you Taldorians out there.

Regarding the encounter with said pirate. We wound up fighting our way on board. We were very fighter heavy. He realized he was overwhelmed so when the druid in our party offered him a chance to surrender without consulting the rest of the party he was surprised when several of us jumped the NPC even after he surrendered. I was playing a Cheliaxian and there were two Taldorians in the party. The Taldorian fighter immediately attacked the boss completely ignoring the surrender point in order to complete his faction quest. The other factions, who had no need to kill the pirate and were perfectly content to turn him over to the authorities, were shocked by this act and tried to intervene. Seeing that the NPC was being attacked I then stepped into the fray in order to complete my faction quest which also included his death. So it created a player vs player encounter. No one died but it did create a negative opinion of the faction quest trees because they felt there was a conflict of interest. By having a player spontaneously negotiate a surrender of an NPC that needed to die in order for others to complete theirs quests it created a conflict between the two parties. The Taldorians and myself felt that we could not share our reason for killing him because it was a matter of faction secrecy. I had personally planned on tieing the NPC to a mast and taking care of him as the party moved to the lower portion of the ship but the Taldorian fighter forced my hand. Should the DM have handled it differently? I have not read the mod. but the impression I got from the DM was there was nothing in the Mod. to address that potential scenario. Thoughts oh mighty Tim.

Your only as right as you believe you are. I believe I am right