![]()
![]()
If it could be applied also to wizard spellcasting, it should have been explicited. As it isn't I'd take the opposite logic. RAW it doesn't apply, and a generous reading is RAI. Expanding on what ErichAD said, the fact that Child of Acavna and Amanzen exists is enough proof that not having specific wording for the Antiquarian doesn't mean the spell failure applies to everything. ![]()
Senko wrote: What? Why I mean even if you don't think it deserves a discount (as most posters seem to agree) why would you prevent a PC making an item that can only be used by a specific family or even one person? How is it any different to making a sword +1 if you make a sword +1 that only Jake can use especially since that would mean its resale value is that of a normal masterwork sword? It's simply not covered by the rules. It depends then on the GM goodwill about it. Some are open-minded about it, others are strictly by-the-book. In any case, I wouldn't allow for any cost reduction either, adding the reason that only crafting ones apply there and that every other character than the target should be able to use it as the other side of the problem : would the other players around the table be okay with that or not. ![]()
I think going Dex-based is better in the long run because of the better Reflex saving throws, better ability score split and ultimately better potential. But on the early sessions, you'll suffer more than with strength, especially with the feat tax - which is something fine with fighters and similar classes, but with an inquisitor, not as much ![]()
TxSam88 wrote:
This is seeing it through a moral lens rather than a strictly materialistic one. Blanket statements like the general alignment description aren't accurate as it's a case-by-case basis. GM call ultimately. ![]()
TxSam88 wrote: Sounds like everything worked itself out, BTW, being "selfish" falls under the Evil alignment, not "Chaotic Neutral" Selfishness isn't inherently evil - it's how the player portray the character could lead that perceived "negative" to be. Kicks in everybody having a different morality and conflicts appear. ![]()
Jesse Lehto wrote: I found reference to Gerhard Pentagrast way too amusing x'D I do think scenario does actually make good job of Nigel not seeming incompetent, but I haven't actually seen all of Nigel's performances as I haven't played all Blakros scenarios, so for all I know this wouldn't convince most people. Nigel isn't inherently bad, but he's most commonly seen as a convenient scapegoat, and running gagged accordingly. I can guess from how the scenario portrays him, which decision has been made in Daughters' Due. (PFS1, #10-18) ![]()
Apple123 wrote:
Frankly I'll never understand GMs being paranoid about the summoners. They're far from overpowered. Comparing similar concepts, I would say from experience, an oracle or a cleric with an animal companion is worse because of the bigger spellcasting. The eidolon might still be stronger, but not by much. The only real problem is more on length sessions, having a character, a companion and summon monsters active at the same time don't help. Otherwise, Summoners are more reliant on the party for their own usefulness, Monster Tacticians are more "selfish". But none are inherently stronger than the other. ![]()
Daniel Baker wrote:
I would take it the opposite way : those not doing so are exposing themselves to a needless risk. ![]()
The Raven Black wrote:
That -> When I played it, there was enough confusion that we didn't do that as we were unwilling to sacrifice budget to get fame. Had it been clearer, it would have been probable we would have reacted differently. But maybe that being unclear was on purpose, wouldn't be surprised if this is the case. ![]()
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
If I was around the table, I would have gotten an immediate after-session chat with the player. I created and played a Kensai a fair number of times, and the damn job of the character is to get in first, dammit. Otherwise where's the purpose of having Int to AC and initiative bonuses ? *Bleep* in a nutshell. It's not like it's impossible to buffer further - either using Frigid Touch to lower enemy output to vampiric touch them to better deal with pain. Their nova ability is good but given they don't have spell recall, this exhausts way faster. From my personal experience, I prefer Dex Kensais over str versions given they are better resilient in the long run. Str's are stronger but I don't feel it justifies the tradeoff. ![]()
VoodistMonk wrote:
There's taking it the other way : players were abusing it hence the errata. Given similar spells around these levels, it works now as intended. Sometimes it's on the players to adapt. grayson773 wrote: This seems to show again that the easiest way to handle this problem is when a save isn't allowed T_T These effects are often of weaker effect than those allowing one so it's not exactly a go-to move. In any case for the wands to have a decent effect, the player has to raise the caster level because taking the lowest is unlikely tu cut it. The problem is it's more expensive. ![]()
I think keeping solo classing is better. Having an extra effect to cold spells are nice but have a lower efficiency than keeping the solo classing. The oracle can decently control the battle on self. As avr says, any opponent who is resistant to control and/or cold makes the concept weaker, and it's not uncommon. Whichever guide rates it highly should suffer a grain of salt - they often forget to foolproof and often talk theory only. Maximum potential vs keeping a more generalistic but versatile control, I'd choose the latter. ![]()
Claxon wrote:
It's one option, but I don't think it's the only way to deal with repetitive playstyles. It should be a mix of encounters where enemies are vulnerable to it, or do dirty things on their own. The one I use myself in that case is pitting them against enemies who can resist the trick. I'm a personal fan of making them immune, because I'm in a group which mostly says it's fair game. But I don't think in general neutralizing the character's abilities is the way to go. There's only a limited amount of spellcasting ability at the first levels so I think the character should maximize Intimidate. I could create a controller Cleric. The problem is the class' spell list lacks of aggression, but if for debuffing, it's decent. Calm Emotions, Command/Forbid Action (and their greater versions), Charitable Impulse, (insert). I think a Negative channeler with the Rulership option is nice but maximizing the DC of the save is a bit difficult, and if it works, the daze effect may be a bit too strong. ![]()
I think this player wouldn't stay long around my tables because I would be very clear from day one : either you accept to compromise, or you're out of the table. This is about the party, this is a teamwork game. No one is above another unless being explicitly agreed upon. There's moments of epicness, and other times when it's a grindfest. Being so self-centered suits only for single-player games. ![]()
I don't hold too much illusions about the effectiveness of KAC/EAC against bosses, but it's still useful if they take penalties for any reason, but lowering the numbers of hits coming from the lesser mobs is the most important there. As long I can survive long enough to outlast the enemies, that's what matters (it helps me to be able to rely on a big stamina pool) ![]()
rorek55 wrote:
Reskinning with the intent of getting a mechanical result out of it = the GM can say you have to stick with the base skin and mechanics. And it's on you to not be a jerk about it, not on the GM to allow it or else being labelled badwrongfun. One can call a cat a cat, but not a a kitchen knife a samurai sword. ![]()
The other thing I saw with quests was that GMs like to take time to run the session and many players willing to play slower in response, so while it should take a set amount of time (there 1 hour) it often takes more. When I played I haven't seen many players complaining about it although I'd suspect some are unhappy about it. It's basically a short session I could play right after work or just after waking up while sipping a coffee. It's convenient enough that I can deal with not exactly having the appropriate rewards. But from what is been depicted there, it sounds like Little trouble in big Absalom sounds like a worse waste of time for little reward. Even with speed up session, it doesn't sound a good incentive to play it at all. The combat argument : I don't like too much not being able to frontload everything behind Armor Class and saving throws. That was my way to ease the pressure as I could that way avoid most of the damaging threats and if it still gets through, well s*i* happens. They had to modify the system to avoid the cases of demon lords hitting only on a nat 20 and classes avoiding all the effects with saving throws (dex inquisitors with a ring of evasion). I mostly still need time to get accustomed to it as the inherent pressure makes me overly nervous. ![]()
I'd expect him frequently butting heads with Eando Kline, it would be funny to see the dynamic between both. Otherwise I'd suspect he's also Razmir also sent him to the Society as a sort of ambassador or a liaison. After all there's seeing if a working relationship between the two organizations might work or not ![]()
Given how the whole schtick is panning out, it's impossible to not be judgemental either way. Paizo making errors during the process but which often are necessary evil (but sometimes could be avoidable), and on the other hand players need to accept they can't control everything. No one is entirely right or wrong, but on both sides, the whole problem could be handled better. Everybody speaks in a different way and that's what causes problems. Asking people to be adaptive shouldn't be a F-word. The only real limit is whether any word spoken infringes the PFS guidelines. The fundamental discrepancy between that and the higher overall sensitivity of people is part of why tempers flare (too) fast. ![]()
There might also be the need to lower the possible number of hits the summons will receive. Memorizing several Command (or Forbid Action) spell slots and similar spells at later levels could help. The problem is the lack of guarantee given targets will be allowed a DC, but you can raise your chances by raising it through traits and/or feats : - Peacemaker feat -> +2 to the DC of spells or other effects intended to force targets to take non-violent actions
(I can't give the links to the different options as I'm at work, d20pfsrd or archives of nethys are blocked) That would only likely work if you consider dipping in a class giving armor proficiencies by default because having to take it as a feat tax might harm the goal. But that would also set the character one class level behind and that might be the more problematic thing. ![]()
It's long overdue they should dedicate an employee to update who needs to be informed off on a frequent enough basis. Blogs or other articles can only help so far. Changes and subsequent disappointement might be warranted or not, but it's more the lack of direct interaction which is innerving in that context. ![]()
Blake's Tiger wrote:
This is the kind of response where it's clear the topic reached a dead end. While disagreeing, you don't get to be dismissive no matter how improbable you think it is. Because it does happen and I never rejected the opposite point of view off the bat. One ruins it when they forget how to argue and focus only on the why when it's a mix of both. Arguing 101. ![]()
Blake's Tiger wrote:
What sounds obvious for you might not be the case everywhere. As much as you find it ludicrous that still exists. The problem is being too assertive about it, like how TwilightKnight is bringing it can be considered adversarial, rather than taking the slow burn approach. At worst anyway there's following the proper chain of command ... Not everybody is nice by nature. In any case, agreeing to disagree because we have completely opposite point of views on that topic. ![]()
I think Destined would be among the better defence-wise. Not a lot is added on offence though so that might not be appealing to many. But starting from level 4, on the condition to cheese a little bit (not many take Fate's Favored to match with the RP, that depends on the player), the character would get to cancel the penalty to AC (and later having better of it than while in normal status) and getting better saving throws. The common point I'd forward is no Crossblooded. Until late in the concept, the -2 penalty to Will saves is a big no-no. If the character was ranged, I'd say you could try it, but not with a melee esp when domination effects aren't uncommon which means there's a possible unwilling PvP. ![]()
TwilightKnight wrote: I don't need everyone to agree to be reasonable and respectful for me to do it. I'm not going to tolerate the occasional vitriol I have received or I have witnessed others receive because they asked a simply question about boons in good faith. The reverse is true : You can't always expect others to be as welcoming of that question as you'd want. The only real limit there is whether the language used is in direct conflict with the rules of the Organized Play campaign. From both sides of the problem there could be clear unwillingness to cooperate, and within these limits there's nothing you could do about it. What is good faith for one could be bad faith for others, and vice-versa. Someone has to analyze first whether the question could be asked, or not. I don't think, given how usually you could see the mindset of the GM or the other players through, this is that difficult. But I won't exclude possible difficulties, and in that case even if one thinks that should be automatic, there's the need of taking time to talk about being more open-minded. Blake's Tiger wrote:
On one hand, Paizo doing some trial by error which is bound to divide opinion, and on the other hand, some having legitimate concerns about wanting parts of the community to be more open-minded, but bungling their arguments in the process by being a bit too emotional about it. I can discuss outside of the session in length to adjust the mindset afterwards, just don't BM about it during. ![]()
At the very least, it's stretching the goodwill on many corners and can deepen some divides between those who want this extra freedom and the more traditionalist players. Sounds like TwilightKnight thinks his argument is something he wishes everybody should agree with, when in effect this is not entirely true. Try to go too fast, and you get a gatecrash. ![]()
Jared Thaler wrote:
For RP purposes it's not a problem. Many might do the same thing so can't blame them, one gets inspirations from where possible. The yellow flag starts when some players use these tropes are used as in-session arguments over rules or other characters in an often not-so-polite way. Now this is not completely avoidable but that's why I prefer to strictly separate IRL from the game at the best possible. ![]()
Saashaa wrote:
That's the "proper" way to do it, if they contribute otherwise to the PFS2 growing (in that case, financially), what they do on their own isn't my concern. It is if as a GM they ask me these question or as a player I'm witnessing that. How the game is played now is different now than it was years ago, for the good or bad, but that part is becoming a concern ... ![]()
TwilightKnight wrote:
Agreeing to disagree on the fundamentals of the debate. I'll stick with the reasoning that the player should find that by self. At least even with more spoilering, it shows effort which isn't there by directly asking. It isn't top secret information but there's where the moral cursor is different for everybody. For me hunting scenarios because of items is morally not acceptable so disagreeing even if it could encourage more play. Not every play is good play. ![]()
Saashaa wrote: If peeps want to know what boons are on what chronicles, the easy answer in my opinion is, "You can buy the scenarios on Paizo's website. They are only about $5 a pop. Find out for yourself." I will expand on that saying that while many there see these kind of questions as reasonable, GMs should be in no compulsion of having to reply to it nor being labelled as badwrongfun if they don't. It's not especially hard to DIY figuring it, so it sounds as lazy asking, no matter how saying it can hurt feelings. ![]()
pjrogers wrote:
On a personal level, I blanket frown upon any comparison with IRL history to justify a fantasy POV. It amounts to compare a mouse with the use of a cat argument. I largely prefer compare what can be realistically compared in-setup. ![]()
If the players can guess through the blurb or any other means, I'll congratulate them. What is not ok is when they directly ask the question like I heard one or two times, or asking for a relaxing of that unwritten rule. Their reasoning is : PFS2 is appearing, so why it should stay as important for PFS1 ? The same logic can be followed for PFS2 : it should stay a F-word. Players wanting to follow specific story arcs because it fits their character better, fair enough. But fishing item purposes ? No go. Your logic to ask for more freedom on that part makes sense, but I disagree because the trend of wanting to cherry pick only what wanted is going worse and worse and there should still be a limit. ![]()
Jesse Lehto wrote:
Seeing that often enough that I'm almost sitting there and eating crisps and drinking beer as it often reaches comical proportions. I have engaged in some of these fisticuffs before, but this lasts only for so long
|