Aeteperax, Green Dragon

Pinstripedbarbarian's page

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell 86 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 57 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Bards: More skill and knowledge stuff. Right now they feel so focused on compositions that they lose out if they try to make something akin to the Archivist or Archaeologist of 1e.

Rogue: DUAL SLICE. Why the hell is rogue lacking a feat that enhances multi weapon fighting? Make it only for finesse rogues if you don't want brutes or swashbucklers using it. Make it a later level than fighter/monk/ranger gets it. Make it so it does fewer dice of sneak attack of you think that's too powerful (even though it's really not). Just PLEASE let rogues get it without having to multiclass. Dual-dagger-wielding thieves or ninjas are very iconic to fantasy adventure games, and it's a shame they can't embrace that in 2e.

Paladin: let them be something other than strength based heavy armor characters. I'd also love to see more alignments accessible.

Ranger: make crossbows better!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

2e has scenarios and they get reported for eventual credit. As far as I know you aren't supposed to use homebrewery for it.

Regardless, it's been over a month since we had the class updates, and they needed to revise the way the archetypes work with them. Even if the playtest isn't going much longer and we can't give as much feedback, they've used feedback in shorter amounts of time. It'd be nice to have some basis on what to use for the next several months before the official product is out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I know home games are workable with homebrew, but for organized play and the like, that's not an option. I've had people at the flgs I coordinate pfs night at asking how to handle updates like this, and I don't really have an answer besides "don't do it."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

We haven't had the multiclass archetypes document updated since September. As of the 1.6 update in November, the updated classes have made lots of the document non-functional. Paladin dedication doesn't match the new alignments, and alchemist dedication simply doesn't function at all. Paladin is easy enough to fake by adjusting verbage about Paladin's Reaction, but with the alchemist overhaul, we need clarification on how it works as a dedication feat. At the very least, we need to know:

  • How does the dedication feat handle infused regents? How many do they get, and is there a feat that specifically manages an increased amount?

  • Do you choose a research field with the dedication feat like a sorcerer's bloodline? If not, is it its own feat like Domain or Arcane School? What benefits would they grant? Do you not get one at all?

  • Are class abilities like Field Discovery or Perpetual Infusion incorporated in the feat list?

    We could also use clarification on other class updates. Some Bard feats now require certain Muses, and some Rogue feats now require certain Rogue Techniques. This locks out multiclass characters who don't get those class features. Technically a multiclass Bard could choose Multifarious Muse, but without having a muse in the first place, it seems kind of sloppy. Is this going to change?

  • Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Captain Morgan wrote:

    See, I'd much rather take Bloodline Heightening than several of the 10th level powers. Dragon Wings on a bloodline that already has Fly baked in is a little disappointing, for example. Which to me is a good example of why Bloodline Heightening should be a feat you opt into, aside from the reasons Landon mentioned. I don't really think there are that many sorcerer feats that outweigh it either.

    Now, you could definitely make a case for it coming online sooner. Realistically though, it does nothing at 2nd, probably does nothing to very little at 4th, might get some very niche use at 6th... I think it doesn't really seem worth a feat until 8th level, when there's 4 different spells it might affect. (Keeping in mind not every spell can be heightened, or gives an effect every level it is heightened.) I'd say 8th might be about right, maaaaybe 6th, but considering there aren't a lot of 10th level feats available and it is a feat that gets better as you level up I can see why it wound up where it did.

    As a specific example, the Imperial Bloodline gets a lot of mileage out of the feat, and 10th level is a neat place for it to kick in-- Dimension Door REALLY spikes in power when it is upped to 5th level, and Dispel Magic at 3 different levels is nice. At 4th...

    I agree that it shouldn't be free (see why last post on why my mind changed). I also like the opt-in nature of things in Ikeafinder, so having it as a feat that makes that particular character more in tune with their bloodline where another character might reject it completely is perfectly fine.

    You're right that at 2nd does nothing and 4th does little or nothing. Remember though that the ability to spontaneously heighten things comes online at 3rd level, when casters still barely have a use for them in most cases. The usability isn't entirely the issue. And if your bloodline doesn't offer anything good to heighten until later, you can delay taking the feat; the opt-in nature makes it so it can be your 10th level feat if you want. Right now it's not so much rewarding characters that would wait anyway so much as limiting characters who could use it early but also want other feats.

    In another light, limiting feats to later levels encourages multiclassing feats. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore the new multiclass system. However, as other threads have pointed out, multiclassing is almost too good of an option for some classes where low level feats are subpar.

    One example was a Bard could take extra cantrips or just multiclass into another spellcasting class to get cantrips AND a skill or two AND potentially other abilities. Since Sorcerer shares a primary stat anyway and offers any spell list it wants, this is kind of lopsided. Bloodline heightening is a great way to add something cool and useful at lower levels that scales with your character, making it appealing without being overpowering.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I think the point made of bloodlines'spells needing to be balanced if the spontaneous heightening was default is good enough reason for it to cost a feat. Even if lots of characters take it, the idea is to not bloat things with unnecessary abilities. It could make a future bloodline not have a super thematic spell just because it isn't heighten-friendly. That's a great point and I agree completely.

    Still, level 10 is too high if it costs a feat. There are too many feats by then that outweigh it in either power or coolness. Level 6 at least would make it an option to empower your bloodline if you don't like the second bloodline power you'd get. Level 4 would be in line with the spell-tradition-feats, but that also might make it too early (and at that point there's only one spell to potentially benefit). Considering you don't even get to choose the spells, it's a high cost.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I posted a similar thread wondering about an Alchemist Dedication update. I have a couple of character concepts that used the old version that I can't use currently, and the changes aren't straightforward enough to just convert to the new version. I hope they have a completed updated version of the file released or something, which would explain why none of it has changed in the resonance test or 1.6 files.

    Paladin also needs an updated dedication feat, but it would be easy enough to fake for now. You would need to choose a deity and a paladin code, get their anathema rules, then you get paladin's reaction 1/day matching your chosen code. And probably make the proficiency section match what fighter dedication says for armor. Just change "retribution" to be for any paladin's reaction ability and the rest lines up fine.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I personally (almost) love the feat. It adds veratility to the class in a way that directly applies to its focus, which Sorcerer sorely needs. It emphasizes spontaneous casting - which sets it apart from most other casters - as well as the bloodline - which is the central theme of the class.

    Right now, very little separates same-spell-list-bloodlines like Angelic and Demonic; a couple powers you might not even take and a few spells you could learn anyway. Likewise, sorcerers don't have a lot to make them shine when compared to the other spellcaster that shares a bloodline's spell list. This feat helps fix both these things. It's a simple, fun way to make it feel like Sorcerer has something special from its bloodline.

    HOWEVER

    I agree that the ability is not worth the cost. Whether or not it would be a feat, level 10 is waaaay too late to get it. Instead of heightening a handful of spells, a level 10 feat could get you something way flashier and still thematic to your bloodline like dragon wings, abyssal wrath, or hellfire plume. Either a few levels earlier, not costing a feat, or preferably both could add a lot to the class.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I might be blind or bad at Google-fu, but is there a new version of the alchemist dedication feat to go with the new version of the class? The old version from the multiclass update still uses resonance points. How do we handle a character multiclassing into alchemist?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    The only problem I'd see in Warpriest would be how similar it might be to cleric. There would certainly be some aspects from it that could be good to use for the paladin/champion/knight/crusader class if they'd be things cleric couldn't also do.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I have mixed feelings about the paladin (or whatever it winds up being) and the changes brought by 1.6. I love the idea of more alignments. It's what I've been hoping for since the playtest began and they mentioned that it might expand beyond lawful good. Personally I was hoping the end product would incorporate all alignments, maybe forcing you to exactly match your deity's alignment. Either that or the four corner alignments to be the pinnacle of ideals, though that would still leave true neutral deities paladin-less.

    Regardless, more alignments are open. Coupled with an eventual name change, the class we know as paladin has huge potential for change and growth. Which lead me to an idea late last night I figured I would throw on the forums:

    What if 2e's "Paladin" merged with and became an updated Inquisitor?

    Both have the divine warrior aesthetic to them. Both judge the masses and enact their deity's will. Both augment their weapons, detect alignment, and get to do things that normal mortals can't because of their faith.

    Mixing paladin and Inquisitor together would really flush out what non-lawful-good paladins can do. I'm not suggesting replacing paladin with Inquisitor so much as reinforcing the class with themes and powers from the other. This way we could have a chaotic neutral worshipper of gorum that leads the charge into battle smiting all that oppose them, or a lawful evil priest of asmodeus that judges the meek and delivers their master's decrees. Even if the class is still limited on alignments in the end, there's a lot of cool, fun, flavorful stuff Inquisitor did that would fit well into the new, broader paladin. Or whatever the class gets called.

    Grand Lodge

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    This has been my favorite update so far.

  • ALL THE MULTICLASSING
  • Sorcerers can now take archetypes at a decent rate. FINALLY. Now I can make my Erinyes Gray Maiden Sorcerer be a decent level.
  • Rangers get flurry of blows for their hunted target. Not bad, though I wish crossbows would get a little more love.
  • Rogues aren't just dexterity fighters now! Whether it becomes a class feat thing or not, I can see pros and cons both ways. I'm happy with the options, but I'm a little sad that there's no two weapon fighting option outside of multiclassing. The traditional double-knife ninja / cutthroat seems like a staple of rogues to me.
  • Medicine healing outside of combat decently seems like a big help. I'm surprised proficiency level doesn't help this at all, or that Natural Medicine isn't faster now. Either way, good to see some way order than magic to patch people up between fights.
  • Identifying and repairing being faster is nice, making the quick versions not so necessary. I think repairing could have stayed at an hour, personally, but anything for convenience I suppose.

    Overall I love this update. Great work and kudos to the team.

  • Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    While I like how sorcerers share spell-lists with different spellcasters depending on their bloodline, it's hard to see them as powerful or unique compared to the other spellcasters when they have fewer class feats than the rest as well as non-existent proficiencies. In the society playtest, my angelic sorcerer's spontaneous versatility meant almost nothing compared to the cleric's armor, weapons, channeling, and selective energy.

    So here's my idea: sorcerer - the class that empowers you with magic based on your blood and ancestry - should let you select class feats using their ancestry feats - those things you get that strengthen your ties to your ancestry. We have both a class and a type of feat that revolve around your lineage; why not directly link them?

    Thematically, doing so could be embracing your magical bloodline instead of your direct parentage, like a human draconic sorcerer inheriting the ability to cast extra cantrips that their dragon forebearer used. Or maybe it's your bloodline overpowering your normal racial traits, like a demonic gnome's ancestor enhancing their spells to cause even more damage every time they concentrate on them.

    Mechanically, the feat could be limited to half-level like the advanced multiclass feats. Maybe some sorcerer feats could have a trait like "bloodline" that this option is restricted to. Whatever the case, this would be a flavorful way to strengthen the class's options and versatility.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    Arcane bloodline got an arcane bond just like wizards, which could be a familiar. Some bloodline have specific familiarity, like serpentine getting a snake familiar at level-2.

    Grand Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I kinda of like the build-your-own familiar aspect, but when you only get two abilities (without spending another feat) and EVERYTHING is in those two abilities, they feel lackluster. I'd be totally fine with the current list of options if each animal had something like what they did for animal companions. Each familiar type gets something on top of the two abilities that makes the choice beneficial (rather than now where it's irrelevant at best, impeding at worst). Something simple would do:

    AMPHIBIAN
    Your familiar is an amphibian, such as a frog or newt.
    Skill: Athletics
    Ability: Swim Speed of 25 feet.

    BIRD
    Your familiar is a common bird, such as a raven or owl.
    Skill: Acrobatics
    Ability: Fly Speed of 25 feet.

    RODENT
    Your familiar is a tiny mammal, such as a rat or squirrel.
    Skill: Stealth
    Ability: Scent

    I'm betting lots of people only see familiars as either bonus cantrips/spells - so familiar abilities are forgotten when you get 4th level spells - or a way to deliver touch spells - where you might take a fly speed or increased movement speed. Barring special circumstances like campaign setting or animal choice locking your abilities, things like climb speed, swim speed, scent, and even darkvision probably won't be used much. If every type of familiar got a different mini-entry like animal companions, the flavor of the whole thing would be much richer and rewarding.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    "You can prepare one additional cantrip. You must be able to prepare cantrips to select this master ability."

    "You can prepare one additional spell at least 3 levels lower than your highest-level spell; you must be able to prepare level 4 spells to select this master ability."

    Emphasis mine.

    Why prepared only? I kind of get that adding cantrips to your repertoire could be weird, but if Sorcerers have a class feat to gain a familiar and another to upgrade it, why are two of the three master abilities worthless for them? Let them cast an extra spell off their repertoire, or do something like the bard's eclectic spell feat. Something to make the familiar a bit better for a class that gets it as a feat.

    Grand Lodge

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I agree wholeheartedly. There are too many instances of "the GM sets the DC" with zero explanation. It would be far better to give a DC in the book or give a way to use the difficulty-by-level chart of DC's. Then, let the GM's adjust DC's accordingly. This way, the GM choosing the difficulty for the chart is already a clear, simple way to allow GM's to adjust the DC while giving them some parameters.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    There's nothing saying Psychic or Occultist couldn't be CHA based in 2.0.

    Whether the realm of "Occult" stuff in this game is philosophical, illogical, metaphysical, lovecraftian/insanity, conflicting, or whatever else, it's distinct from Arcana because it isn't purely normal, logical, or scientific. It has its own reasoning behind it that only makes sense in its own way. So if you need to have a nuanced way of approaching Occultism rather than the pragmatic method Arcana works, why would you use INT to feel your way through it?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    The four magical knowledges should match their spellcasting abilities. One of the uses of each skill is to learn spells of the corresponding type, and yet Occultism doesn't seem to follow suit.


    • Arcana is INT based and focuses on alchemy and arcane practices. Wizards use Arcane magic (and Alchemists use Alchemy). They're INT based.

    • Religion is WIS based and focuses on "deities, dogma, faith, and the realms of divine creatures." Clerics are the primary dogmatic, faith-based, Divine caster. They're WIS based.

    • Nature is WIS based and focuses on "animals and magical beasts" and "flora, fauna, geography, weather, the environment, or creatures of natural significance". Druids are the Primal casters with all sorts of animal-, plant-, and nature-based powers. They're WIS based.

    • Occultism is INT based and focuses on "ancient mysteries, obscure philosophy, or creatures of occult significance" as well as "complex metaphysical systems, syncretic principles, and incoherent ramblings." Bards are the Occult casters that revolve around mysteries, philosophy, and rambling in their magics. They're CHA based.

    I get that "knowledges" being INT or WIS based makes more sense and that CHA is more of a stretch, but we're talking about something that literally lists "incoherent ramblings" as part of its knowledge base.

    Bard has a class feat that magically unlocks memories to permit Recall Knowledge checks that improves with Occultism. They have another class feat that lets them act as if they're trained in every skill that improves with Occultism. It seems wrong to have such a core skill not match their key ability score.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    It seems like Sorcerer got the short end of the stick here. Almost like it never got a revamp that other classes got in regards to class feats.

    Clerics have domains, and each one has an advanced domain power. They're optional. You take the "Advanced Domain" class feat to acquire them. You can ignore your domain/s advanced options for other Cleric feats or to make room for multiclassing.

    Barbarians have totem specific options such as "Dragon Totem Breath" and "Giant's Stature" as class feats. Again, take as many or as few as you like.

    A bard's muse doesn't even lock them into or out of a path. They can grab other muses' class feats if they wish. Or not. Hell, a human bard can effectively start with two muses using Natural Ambition and choosing a specific spell.

    Sorcerers are forced into their bloodline powers. In place of those levels' class feats. The end.

    It's the odd class out in regards to class feats. All the non-spellcasters get a class feat every even level. Every OTHER spellcaster gets a class feat every even level save 12 and 16, when their spell proficiency goes up. The only feat sorcerer has with a choice-related prerequisite is the "Evolution" line, which technically isn't even about their bloodline (only the bloodline's spell-list, which might not even be unique to the bloodline).

    It's such a shame. I love the direction they went with the spell-list-bloodline connection, but the class looks ultimately crippled and railroaded while the rest are much more dynamic.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    I think the favored character option is a neat way to expand play options, but one character only might limit people with loads of characters they want to play. Perhaps we could tie the favored character option to gm stars? Maybe a gm reward boon like in the past that allows extra favored characters. Not necessarily one per star (I wouldn't object to getting 5 extra replays, but at that point it's almost the same as unlimited replays for practical purposes), but incorporating one or two extra characters' legacies into a gm's career is both fitting and helps address the first-edition-gm-star-reward problem.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Ventnor wrote:

    "Watch out! Those space-murderhobos entered the space-dungeon to space-loot it!"

    "We get it! You're from space!"

    "So long as we don't lose our space-prestige points for our space-factions, I'll be space-fine."

    Precisely what I'm hoping to avoid.

    Grand Lodge

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    Super serious conversation time.

    A common term I've heard for years in Pathfinder - be it in Society play referring to agents, or simply the playstyle of a lot of people - is "murder-hobo." I'm sure most people have heard this before or at least understand why we'd be called such. But soon, we'll be in space, travelling on starships, going onto spacestations... The "hobo" part might not hold up anymore.

    I personally propose we use the term "Murdernauts" in the future for any Starfinder shenanigans.

    What other colloquialisms from Pathfinder do you think need sci-fi-ing for Starfinder? Things like "lawful stupid" could stay probably, but I'm sure lots of things we say frequently could use a space-y version for fluff and fun.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    Simple question: does the bardic ability Lore Master allow a bard to take 10 on a research check?

    Ultimate Intrigue wrote:
    Attempting a Research check requires an uninterrupted 8-hour period of research, and a character cannot take 10 or 20 on a Research check.

    However, a bard's Lore Master ability allows it to take 10 on knowledge checks even in situations they normally can't, like being distracted or being in battle. Furthermore, they can take 20 a certain number of times a day as a standard action.

    My take on it is that 20 wouldn't work, seeing as the research roll represents 8 hours of studying / reading / whatever compared to a single standard action. However, taking 10 doesn't actually take an action different to a normal roll. It doesn't matter the time it takes, just a normal roll. It also makes sense, given that the ability is literally mastering lore. On the other hand, I can see the argument that researching for hours on end isn't a basic knowledge check and wouldn't qualify.

    So does Lore Master allow a bard doing a research check to 1. take 20 on the check as a standard action, 2. take 10 on the check with the 'always can' option, or 3. do nothing special with the ability.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kashka wrote:

    Pathfinder Swat sat down for Bid for Alabastrine this morning. 56 minutes later we make it out of the briefing. The Gm has lowered his head in laughter/pain/joy/disgust a dozen times.

    58 minutes later, the first combat is over, the Perp's handcuffed and it is time for the union break. When the coffee and donuts landed on the table the gm was just speechless and started laughing again.

    YOU GUYS WALKED UP WITH AVIATORS, A THEME SONG, AND DONUTS. WHAT WAS I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THAT

    Mista Moore wrote:
    Spoiler:
    The aspis just tried to bribe the cops.

    Spoiler:
    She thought you were dirty cops. Could you blame her?
    MisterSlanky wrote:
    Cheers to the people of Druma and your new protectors. That Aspis rat didn't stand a chance.

    #DrumaLodge4Life

    Dicky Serpico wrote:
    Ri'chard Beckett wrote:
    And one word about my mom and I'll be sending IA a formal harassment complaint.
    Go a head and complain all you want. Your mom doesn't.

    Don't worry, IA is already very intimately aware of Ri'chard's ma.

    Seriously, Swat was one of the most memorable moments I've ever had GMing. We need to make sure to get at least one table together next year, if not sooner!

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

    Fortunately, the GM was awesome and a couple of our players... well...

    Hopefully that one poor, poor, poor Mister Explodeypants will get better in a next life.

    Hey, when you get one of the writers to get out of bed and come down to see for themselves how you guys break the scenario, you know you're doing alright.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I have... mixed feelings on the artwork. The talons and feathers incorporated in the suit are almost too subtle compared to the LOUD costume he had before. I think it looks cool, don't get me wrong, but what was wrong with the original Red Raven art? It definitely made him more memorable, more of an icon for Galt. Nobody mistook him for anything but the defender of the people that he was. This look, while very neat, seems like it could just as well be a mook with good fashion sense.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    Am I missing something? When does the protection from energy part refill?

    Pathfinder Unchained wrote:
    Energy Resistance (Ex): The barbarian gains resistance to one energy type (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic) equal to 1/2 her barbarian level (minimum 1). At 8th level, she gains limited immunity to the same type of energy, as protection from energy. She can absorb 2 points of damage per level, and she applies her energy resistance first. The energy type is chosen when this rage power is selected, and it can't be changed. This rage power can be selected more than once; each time, it applies to a different energy type.

    It doesn't say per day or per rage or anything. Is this really meant to be a one time protection? That doesn't sound right, but I can't seem to find a clear answer to when it does refresh.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I only wish "Anybody want a peanut?" made it into the list of quotes.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I love the Princess Bride quotes this week.

    Grand Lodge

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    Wow. I came to make a Princess Bride reference, and you folks have gone above an beyond. You've made my night. Thank you all.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Queen Moragan wrote:
    Normally the trapmaker would want to put the trigger within the area of effect. If you put the trigger before or after the area of effect, assuming you want to inflict some sort of damage to creatures within the area, then you'll miss the creature that triggers it.

    Okay, so let's say there's a Fireball trap that uses Sight (True Seeing). The location of the spell trap is in the back corner of a room that only has a single entrance in the opposite corner. The trap is set to go off any time the True Seeing detects movement, and it has 120ft. vision range with +30 perception. At that point, even if the trap was detected before it goes off, they'd have to bypass the Perception check to get close enough to disable, right? And if they don't succeed, it triggers and goes off while they're approaching?

    I just want to be clear on how all this stuff works. I have a very good trap-monkey in this party, so I want to give him every chance to do his thing. At the same time, being able to have a trap go off with this party is something of a rarity and would be fun to do on occasion.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    Reading through some traps I'm going to employ in an upcoming game, I've become doubtful on my knowledge of traps and when/how they go off. I'm curious at what point a trap is just un-Disable-able. Trip wires and pressure plates and such are easy enough to understand. I'm talking more about magic traps that go off sight or proximity.

    A lot of traps seem to use the Alarm spell. The trap section reads:

    Quote:
    Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger can have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect.

    Under most circumstances, wouldn't a character have to go through that area in order to disable the trap? If the source of the trap is within the area it's meant to protect, it would trigger before anyone gets close enough to roll a skill check.

    Or if a trap has Sight (True Seeing), can a character even get close enough to try to disable it?

    Quote:
    Sight range and the Perception bonus conferred on the trap depend on the spell chosen, as shown.
    Quote:
    True Seeing - Line of sight (up to 120 ft.) - Perception Bonus: +30

    Barring unusual circumstances - like a character with +50 Stealth or having access to disable it from behind a wall / beneath the floor / whatever would block line of sight yet allow a Disable Device check - a trap with True Seeing is going to have sight on you before you get next to it.

    Maybe it's because I don't use magic traps as much in home games, but I feel like I've overlooked this whole section of tools to use and have subpar understanding of them. Are these basically ways of making traps guaranteed to get set off? Or am I missing and misunderstanding something?

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Even though I have to rework one of my character's build, I'm happy with this. I really appreciate how much the team is working to pull back the power-creep that has exploded over the past couple years. One of the main reasons my group likes Core so much is avoiding crazy builds on par with Synthesists. And, unlike the Aasimar / Tiefling thing, all we're losing is early-access options; granted that will make some classes (looking at you, Mystic Theurge) far less appealing, but it's not the same as completely losing the options.

    In short: I like it.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Duiker wrote:
    I'm not asking for your fricking social security number, lighten up. It's a social activity to have fun, not an excuse for you to get off on calling rudeness an air of mystery.
    Duiker wrote:
    Out of character, lying to other players when asked simple questions about what you're playing is the very epitome of being a jerk.
    Duiker wrote:
    My comments were directed at melferburque's delighting in regularly trolling the other players at his tables.
    Duiker wrote:
    lying to other players when asked simple questions about what you're playing is the very epitome of being a jerk.
    Duiker wrote:
    Lighten up.

    You regularly made ad hoc comments and judgements of character. You directly call out M's actions as jerkish and dishonest. And your 'discussion' is almost entirely telling other people that they're wrong, the problem is theirs, and they need to change.

    Yes, I have a problem with people that act like that. No, I don't think you're intentionally being a jerk or even that you agree that your actions are jerkish. But as you are someone who has spent time tonight arguing that another's actions are jerkish even if they don't mean them to be - and further argue that those actions are socially irresponsible - I am informing you that I find your actions jerkish, even if you don't mean them to be.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Duiker wrote:
    Pinstripedbarbarian: I fail to see in the least how I am being impolite, but you keep saying that. Melferburque and I are having a difference of opinion, I do not see my messages as being impolite and I don't see melferburque's messages as being so either, even if we disagree about play etiquette.

    From what I've seen in this thread, your comments could be boiled down to:

    • "You're a jerk because your definition of politeness does not exactly coincide with mine."
    • "You're lying to me because I asked for information and you described the answer rather than using an exact term I was expecting."
    • "You need to lighten up! I hate when people aren't light hearted enough! You're causing slight problems for me WHY WON'T YOU LIGHTEN UP?!"

    You've called him a jerk multiple times and said he is rude. Now you're saying you 'don't see melferburque's messages as being so either.' I think their is a disconnect there.

    If you ask a player what they are playing and they describe their roles without a Class Name, they did not lie to you. That's not lying. If you then ask specifically what class they are, and they say something vague like "I'm a priest of Razmir" that's still not lying, that's withholding information. You could, then, pointedly ask what their actual Class is, but they have every right to respond "I'd rather not tell you. I told you what my character does and how I intend to play him. The Class's name isn't what's important about the character."

    If you have specific questions because you want to know how to work with the character, like what a character's casting stat is or what weapon they use or what skill is important to them, then ask that. Demanding that you hear the words "Cleric" or "Swashbuckler" or "Alchemist" is demeaning to the character and the player who spent time building them.

    I have seven bards in PFS, and you can ask anyone that's played with me, none of them are remotely alike. I have a utility-belt-bard, a stupid 'bard-barian', a know it all librarian, a shy guy, a cowboy, a death metal singer, and a dovahkin. A few might share roles like buffing or debuffing or damage or whatever, but NONE of them can be boiled down to the word "BARD". And every one of them would be "BARD" if I answered the way you expect.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Duiker wrote:

    I should know because I'm a player not a character, and I asked you a simple question, and you decided that rather than being a polite human being in a social situation, you would rather lie.

    It's not about the gameplay in the least, it's about basic civility in a social activity. Remove PFS from it completely. If I sit next to you on the bus and we strike up a conversation, and I ask you what book you're reading, and you lie to me about what book it is, you're being a jerk. Even if I never notice what the cover actually said, even if doesn't change my day in the slightest, that's simply not being nice.

    I'm gonna point out, again, that you are coming across extremely jerkish in your crusade again jerks. Maybe crank up the politeness a tad before having the pot call the kettle black?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Quote:

    I feel that describing your cleric character as a roguish character seems fine, it only really becomes a problem when people get the wrong idea, or if you description mixes rules and RP terms.

    And I would not describe that duelist as a bard either. Of course my current character will soon be a Kata Master Monk / Sacred Shield Paladin / Brawler, and that might no be particularly relevant to other players.

    That's exactly why I describe my character as such. I sneak, I bluff, I find and disable traps (magical ones even), all like a rogue does. I do so a lot better than 99% of clerics out there because I built the character to do so. His main source of damage isn't sneak attacking - and I make sure people understand I'm not one for making attack roles with my 5 Str - but I still do damage.

    You bring up an important point though: I'm careful not to mix rules and RP or in character terms. Like with my nagaji, I might say I make others more confident in their combat abilities by telling them that I got things covered and that we'll surely win this fight together. Mechanically, I'm giving everyone a +3 competence bonus to attack and damage using Perform (Oratory) for Inspire Courage. If they get the benefits - which again I explain before play - who cares if I use the word 'Inspire' anywhere in there? The character doesn't know he's a bard. Hell, with 5 Int he doesn't know much, but he knows he can make his friends better at hitting things just like he does.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Duiker wrote:
    Look if I sit down to a table of PFS and somebody refuses to even tell me what class they're playing, I might not know what class the character is, but I'm pretty sure that the player has class levels in jerk. I'm not asking for your fricking social security number, lighten up. It's a social activity to have fun, not an excuse for you to get off on calling rudeness an air of mystery.

    Because calling someone a jerk when they don't submit to your demands to know something they would rather not tell you so they can have fun in this fun social activity is perfectly polite and not rude at all. Am I getting that right? Telling them to lighten up when you're spitting insults at them for describing a role without using exact terms like "Cleric" or "Bard" is totally fun, social behavior. Not rude. Not jerkish behavior.

    Look, I find saying class names can be detrimental sometimes as well. I recently made a Cleric of Norgorber for Core. He channels negative energy very well several times a day, and I even dipped a level of Rogue so he can be sneaky and do traps, just like a good follower of the Reaper of Reputation. He deals his damage, does thief-like skills, and can even throw a buff out sometimes. But if I show up saying I'm a Cleric, people are going to assume I have the healing covered for the party. If I say I'm a cultist of the god of thieves, suddenly I'm "off the hook" for healing and people let me play my character. If they ask what a cultist does in game, I say I deal damage and pick locks with a bit of party helping / buffing on occasion. Plus that saves the party from disappointment and death when it they assume the halfling cleric can channel to heal them in battle.

    I have an arcane duelist that I absolutely love to play. He has 24 Str and 5 Int. At level 8, before Inspire Courage or any buff spells, he hits for 1d8+22. If I were to say "I'm playing a bard today!" people (other than those who know I have seven bards in PFS) would think buffs, control spells, maybe some lame amount of damage. When I say "I'm playing a nagaji who thinks he's a barbarian. Now, here are the buffs I give people" everyone understands exactly what my character does in the game. I'm going into melee, I'll need healing because I'm going to get hit a lot, but - hey look at this - I also do these mechanical things like give a competence bonus to attack and damage. I don't withhold the word "Bard" from my description, but it doesn't necessarily come up every time.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I'm in! Looking forward to it!

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    My first core character will be... a bard! But, you know, I already have 7 in normal PFS, so one more can't hurt, right? Playing around with a Dragon Disciple this time around...

    After that I'm debating on either a half-orc ranger that actually uses his weapon familiarity or a halfling cleric of norgorber with a couple levels of rogue.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    • Reach 5 stars
    • Play more than I GM (failed that last year)
    • Finish playing Eyes of Ten (half way there)
    • GM Eyes of Ten
    • Run through my subscription of Super-Modules (Dragon's Demand done, Tears at Bitter Manor half through, none of the others started)

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    Favorite Scenarios:

    • Murder on the Throaty Mermaid: different every time!
    • Silent Tide: I love the special encounters, though I hate the end boss.
    • City of Strangers 1&2: gotta love Miss Feathers.
    • Library of the Lion: great break from the regular hack-n-slash.
    • Quest for Perfection 1-3: a nice little story arc, and part 3 has perhaps my favorite method of non-combat solutions
    • Trial By Machine (which I feel could/should have been another Confirmation.

    Favorite Modules:

    • Dragon's Demand: super fun, especially campaign mode.
    • Godsmouth Heresy: good for a classic dungeon crawl.
    • Feast of Ravenmoor: VERY flavorful, very creepy.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    Really awesome stuff to read. John Compton said something big was coming at yesterday's game; I had no idea it was THIS big!

    I'm really happy to see the focuses here. Shorter "big boy" scenarios, more quests, faction rework, all of it. Great to hear!

    I do hope that the rule subsystems don't get pulled back too much though. Re-examining them is certainly a good thing, but I personally LOVE scenarios where point-tracking things come into play. For example:

    Spoiler:
    In Quest for Perfection part 3, PC's can earn Defense Points by doing various tasks around the town of Nesting Swallow before the onslaught. This grants advantages in the final battle like reducing the number of enemies or letting players expend Defense Points to give them direct bonuses in combat.
    This was AWESOME. It allowed non-combat rules to really influence the scenario without excluding the BSF, murder-hobo types (who definitely had their challenge with the boss).

    Doing things like that in more - not necessarily all - scenarios would be a refreshing mix of combat and social stuff. People who focus characters on skills and quirky tricks could accomplish tasks that still help in combat indirectly, while the full-combat folk still get to have the limelight in the end. And if everyone just wants to murder things? They get more challenging, more satisfying combats.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    14 people marked this as a favorite.

    As coordinator of the event this scenario took place at, I'd like to point out a few things.

    This was the GM's very first time running a table for PFS. He came to me a week ago after having played at this location for a few months and said he'd like to help share the GM load. I recommended checking the FreeRPG scenarios to get started, and I'd print out something like The Confirmation for him if he'd like to keep going.

    I had a seasoned GM at the table to help out. This person was actually going to GM this week but agreed to help the new GM instead. Speaking with him after the fact, he said the new GM in question did fine for his first time with only a few notable errors that he and the table were able to help him with. Unfortunately, a character death occurred around the same time as one of these errors.

    The GM was extremely apologetic and tried to smooth over any mistakes the best he could. He admitted at the beginning of the scenario he wasn't especially experienced and was trying his hand at GMing to help out. And again, according to someone at the table who does GM regularly, he did a relatively good job. He was new, there were mistakes, but overall nothing blindingly incompetent.

    If players have any issues with GMs at my store and request not being at their table, I can make a point to accommodate that request. I understand that people don't always get along or rub each other the wrong way. However, if that GM is running the only table you can play and you don't want that GM, then you're going to miss out on a night of PFS. I cannot change an entire night's set up for one person when twenty others are already good to go. Other than that, I can make sure GM's run to the best of their ability and watch for repeat problems.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    I have two regulars at the store I coordinate that are both 14. They're more engaged, active, and mature than some of the 30 year olds that show up. There's also a 10 year old that joins his dad semi-regularly who does fine, albeit with encouragement and supervision.

    Now, I had to ask a parent to reconsider bringing a couple of other 10 year olds to the game because they were never prepared, never sat still, and never let the group move on without disruptions and distractions. The parents also never stayed with them to help out; they were simply dropped off and picked up once it was over.

    My suggestion is to try it out. 14 years old with a family member helping keep them on track should be just fine. So long as there aren't many big disruptions, it should be fine.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell aka Pinstripedbarbarian

    After quite a delay, my group finished Dragon's Demand all the way through (finally!) in campaign mode. Everyone is applying all of their sheets to the same characters, so we're all getting the bonus chronicle sheet.

    When I go to report, under the "choose a scenario" thing, only parts 1-3 show (the sanctioned parts). Is there something extra I have to do for the bonus sheet? Do I even have to show it? I ask because as is, characters don't appear to have as much xp or fame as they are supposed to on their online sessions. Am I missing something? Or is it just not representative on the reporting page?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    As others have said, the We Be Goblins series are great for one-shot adventures.

    The first module I ran is still my favorite: Godsmouth Heresy. It's a 1-2 adventure, perfect for introducing new character ideas, and it has a lot of classic dungeon-crawl stuff.

    I played Carrion Hill not too long ago, and it's great for a few levels higher with creepy horror flavor. Good mix of mystery and hack-n-slash.

    If you want a longer example, The Dragon's Demand is almost a mini-AP that goes from level 1 to 7 throughout its course and has a lot to offer for dungeons, wilderness, urban, and social encounters.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
    Sean K Reynolds wrote:

    Here's a heads-up on some skald changes I'll be implementing:

    * Adding more rage powers keyed to skald abilities.

    * Address whether you can share rage powers that have other rage powers as prereqs (have to discuss this one a bit).

    * Whether to use the skald's ability score for shared rage powers, or the recipient's (leaning toward the skald's).

    * Possibly adding more performance rounds per day.

    * Giving the skald at least one additional kind of performance.

    * Improve the capstone.

    All of these seem very good choices. Skald-focused rage powers will be interesting, as will an improved capstone. I didn't really explore the prereq rage power thing in my playing with the skald, but I wonder how the use-activation-limitation would affect this. More performances and more rounds per day would definitely help the versatility of the class without outright overpowering it.

    All in all, I look forward to these changes! Seems pretty awesome.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

    I was disappointed that there were no paladin hybrids in the 10. I mean, 2 barbarians, 2 fighters, 2 rogues... no paladin? Every other core class and half the base classes got hybrids. Paladin/ranger that hunts down all things evil/against code. Paladin/druid that reveres nature and upholds peace and balance. Something that mixes the flavor and focus of a paladin with... anything really.

    I'd like to see more bards, but I'm horribly biased when it comes to bards. Something like a Spellsinger that is a sorcerer/bard hybrid would be cool. A martial class that has bard mixed in (maybe a 4/9 caster like bloodrager, but bardy) is conceptually cool; don't just play a gish that buffs himself and runs in, play a gish that buffs EVERYONE and DANCES in!

    1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>