I'm surprised that no one mentioned how nerfed Smite is now. Unless, I'm missing something obvious, you can only smite starting at 9th level, you can only "attempt" it as a reaction to someone else being attacked right near you, and if you hit you cause a mere handful of hit points of damage per round on a creature that will likely laugh it off due to its level.
There's a cleric feat that does it, gotta look there.
Sorry, I'm still missing something. I don't see anywhere in the build for that 1at level paladin where a cleric feat comes into play. I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around all the new PF2 rules so please pardon my ignorance.
Also, I'm correct in assuming that every class at any level has the same number of potential attacks...THREE? I'm guessing this works okay due to the very slim chance at lower levels of extra attacks being useful.
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I'll throw this out here anyway...
Please refine how resources are tracked!
It is absolutely pointless and a major pain-in-the-arse to track virtually every little item on a separate sheet. In all the time I've played PFS, no one has looked at any one of the 16 sheets I've dutifully kept up to date. Yes, that might mean I've not been thoroughly audited and from what I understand, such audits are very rare. Beyond that, if a player wants to cheat...they're going to cheat. It's a game and most people understand that.
Please do NOT force players to mindlessly track mundane and cheap magic items. Maybe raise the bar to 1,000 GP or something else.
It never ceases to baffle me as to why anyone would want to run level 2 characters through this thing. It's an mild challenge at best for 4 1st level characters (although there's one encounter that can be a bit tough...'nuf said on that).
It was written for 4 1st level characters and the chronicle sheet only delineates Tier 1. I'm not sure it could be any clearer.
Forcing the allowance of 2nd level characters to play this module is ridiculous.
I've come across the situation multiple times where I know a player has already played a scenario (especially for Core/Normal mode crossover stuff). I nicely ask them if they're okay with being waitlisted to allow players who haven't played the scenario to come ahead of them. I don't think I've ever had anyone say "No". But, if if they insisted they wanted to play, then I'd probably let them with the advice to let the mystery of the scenario remain for the other players to discover. If I were to discover a player that broke the mystery (deliberately or otherwise) then I would likely not allow them to join any future table (which is easy for online games, but a bit more difficult for physical tables).
I personally vote for changing the rules to allow a player to payback another. In fact, I think it's sorely missing from the game and it allows common courtesy between players, especially players that may never or rarely play at the same table again.
The current rule(s) around this seem artificial in the sense they enforce an unreal set of expectations for a set of party members that adventure together simply because it's "Society".
Perhaps there should be a minimum limit set (like 150 or 250 or whatever) so that simply casting an Endure Elements scroll for someone at the table isn't necessarily part of this mix.
I'm obviously missing something here.
I don't understand why all the opposition to replacing a consumable, expensive or otherwise. I don't see how this is corrupting or problematic. It's very practical and pragmatic except for some strange reason in Society. Yes, I abide by the rules, including this one, but it just seems a bit too stringent.
The very nature of Society play is that you may never see the table of players your at when your consumables are expended for them. It's not like you're helping yourself at some future time by essentially being altruistic and spending down your wealth on other players. If the other players can reimburse for something that you owned but was for their own purpose...why not?
You'll get examples like this (which I'm sure really happen all the time):
Society play is is a team sport. If a character neglected to purchase an item before an adventure that another character legitimately has at the table, why can't they agree to reimburse? What's so evil about that? It's not like they head back to the Grand Lodge at the end of the adventure to get the debriefing and the VC immediately teleports everyone in the party at great distances apart from each other to enforce non-reimbursement.
[Normal campaign mode]
After losing chieftain after chieftain, the Birdcruncher goblin tribe finally found competent leadership in its four goblin "heroes"—Reta Bigbad the fighter, Chuffy Lickwound the rogue, Poog the cleric of Zarongel, and Mogmurch the alchemist. But it turns out leading a tribe of goblins isn't much fun, and the newest Birdcruncher chieftains are bored. In order to cure their doldrums, the chieftains have issued a new demand—find them some adventure, or else!
Eager to please their great chieftains, the Birdcruncher goblins frantically try to whip up all sorts of amusements, including goblin games, feats of skill, and a grand feast. But trouble arises in the midst of the goblins' feast for their mighty leaders—the goblins who went to harvest truffles for the feast got beat up by some stinky humans!
Now the Birdcruncher chieftains find themselves getting more adventure than they bargained for as they venture to the Bestest Truffle Field to pick up the slack for their bumbling minions. Will the goblin heroes be able to make it to the field, find the treasured fungus, defeat the mean humans, and make it back to the tribe in time to enjoy their well-deserved feast?
Please sign up on WARHORN (and don't forget to send me the information below). If you newly register on Warhorn you'll also need to sign up to Play in a session slot (sometimes people forget to do this).
If you need to drop out, please be courteous enough to drop by Withdrawing from the session (as soon as you know) on Warhorn so an Alternate can move up on the play list.
After signing up, please send me the following information at bgoldstein14[at]hotmail[dot]com for which character will receive credit for this scenario:
I realize that it would take a long time for a character to sharpen up a quiver of arrows, but they usually have plenty of downtimes, so why not?
The funny thing is that I think I've only seen one player in all the tables I've ever played noted that he used a whetstone for the +1 damage on his first attack.
I love this idea and I look forward to getting into games as a player and as a GM. The only thing that I might be a bit concerned about is that there are various scenarios that have optimized themselves to be fairly challenging/dangerous and seem to be prepared to take on parties that have also optimized themselves from all the available books. Those scenarios might become exceptionally dangerous when dealing with simple core parties. Maybe this concern is invalid.
I think the ability to play Season 0-3 in CORE mode is awesome since those scenarios never anticipated the power-creep and abilities that newer parties took on. Too many scenarios became cakewalks. I think this idea will even the playing field for those scenarios.
So, it would seem PFS legal if a character put on a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor and then put on a Swarmbane Clasp. Based on what was said above, the Swarmbane Clasp would be ineffective until the wearer decided to take off (as a move action) the Amulet of Natural Armor. That could actually be a useful tactic, if legal.
Barbarians/Bloodragers get this at 7th level. By the time they get DR 1/-, is it really that tremendous to not get that extra single hitpoint of damage when creatures encountered at that point are capable of easily doing damage in the teens and 20's and more?
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer 1 hit point less damage given a choice. But, I've heard players rave about getting that ability and I don't quite see the extraordinary advantage.
Am I missing something?
Raymond Lambert wrote:
Thank you for the efforts to make running these games easier. I never had any aspirations to to gain many GM stars.but as I am so close to 2 stars and I see the efforts you make, I begin to wonder if I will hit three just for love of the game. For a while.now, I have.hated having to prep adventures, especially the one with NPC codex or young/advanced templates. I absolutely hated.how irritating it was to look up NPC.codex characters on the PRD was. You don't even tell us what class they are. I also cannot express how troublesome constantly having to.remember the young/advanced template modifiers are. I found that just writing a note card with the modifiers was not enough as I still had to go look at the base creature and often just used those numbers forgetting to apply young /advanced modifiers because I was trying to keep the table moving and getting people out by 12 midnight at the 5 hour mark, after begining at 7pm.
Raymond, it really pays to check this out GM Shared Prep before running a scenario/module. Many of the scenarios already have the stat blocks done for you. I find it invaluable to prepare the stat blocks ahead of time on full sheets of paper (one-sided if possible). If the stats don't already exist, it usually doesn't take that long to do up your own and then you can upload your work onto the site to share with all.
What I'd love to see (and probably won't because of a desire to keep selling old product) is to consolidate the items/feats/spells/etc from some of the obsolete guides into a new guide so that players are not forced to buy an obsolete guide just to be able to legally use that one item or whatever.
The basically deprecated guides which I'm referring to are: Pathfinder Society Primer, Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and Seekers of Secrets. I'm not sure if there are others.
John Compton wrote:
John, I appreciate your response to this thread. I'm a tad bit confused by part of it though.
Are you inferring a "good" Pathfinder party would have still found a way to decimate the lair (of hosts that are effectively kind to the party) to get the treasure?
This is ALL spoilish!:
I just played the Godhome level of the Emerald Spire superdungeon last night and it was a bizarre experience to say the least. The game was basically over in about an hour for our party and we ended up with only 1XP, 1PP, and a small portion of the GP. I'm actually grateful for that much. No one got hurt (not even a single NPC).
It would seem the only way to succeed at the conditions for that level are either you're an evil party (which doesn't work in PFS) or your PFS party is made up of a bunch of players that really don't believe in the Pathfinder mantra and just like to kill things.
To reiterate the basis of the level, it's like this (and in addition to the GM reviewing the details of the module after we finished, we also had another 5-star GM at the table who previously ran it who agreed with those details as reviewed):
You enter the level and are greeted by Troglodyte stench and a Troglodyte leader(type). He welcomes you to the area and suggests you appease their god by offering some iron. He also offers you to try their (yucky) grub food. All the Troglodytes on the level are non-hostile as well as the leader.
We eventually come up with some iron that we had in our gear to appease their "god" (after having one character get stuck to their god with their armor and we had to overcome that). After appeasing the god, the Troglodyte leader offers a complete tour of the level and explanation of all areas on the level and then shows us the secret door which we open that leads to the next level of the dungeon (the Drowned Level).
Now, we did figure out that probably we'd have to take down the doors and stick them into the god because it looked like that would work just by looking at the contraption. But, the Troglodytes said they would not allow it.
So, why as "good" Pathfinders would you basically give them the finger and destroy their home anyway by taking down their doors which would eventually force you to kill every single Troglodyte on the level and earning you a successful mission?
The Troglodytes offer no resistance and essentially treated us as guests in their home with no subversive motive that we were aware of (and I don't think there was any other motive).
For PFS play, if you role-play it right, how would a party ever be successful on that level?
Perhaps the level could have been edited to perhaps incite the party for the need to push forward with the idea of dismantling their lair?
I found that if I try to simply use the Copy Image functionality from PFS scenario PDF's I just get a black box. I have to enlarge the image on the screen and do a Screenshot. Unfortunately, the PDF pages cannot be brought into something like Photoshop for direct printing.
Is there a trick to copying the PDF images that I'm missing?
Would you guys mind if I step in here to say I applaud this idea?!
Thank you, Mr. Lich. Thank you.
This is a viable idea and I think it's great and a step towards helping many who have a gazillion books and are trying to keep with the spirit of legality with Paizo's organized rules.
[For the record, is this the first time a Paladin has been grateful to a Lich?]
I'm learning a lot with this thread.
I love learning about the special "dips" that various classes make to turn their main class into a very powerful combo.
The biggest surprise so far is seeing the Summoner getting a big thumbs down. I'm playing a summoner with a serpentine Eidolon. With this build, it's built for stealth and grappling. I can see where some of the dislike is coming from and I didn't think much about the fact that the Summoner gets to avoid combat and lets his summoned creature(s) go to bat for him. I don't see this class as "broken" or overpowered though as a couple of others.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one of the opinion that the Gunslinger can be quite overpowering on a table. That class is built to be (what I would say is) overpowered from the get-go. As a player, a Gunslinger has saved our party's life once or thrice. More often, they just dominate the encounters and take away any real challenge. As a GM, I just have to roll my eyes in disbelief as they put multiple bullet holes in demons completely turning a challenging encounter into a farce. And, I'm also one of those old-school gamers who don't like seeing gunplay in the fantasy world. I have to scratch my head and wonder why Paizo didn't see this coming when they were play-testing the class before sanctioning it. With double barrels, dual wielding, hitting Touch AC...c'mon!
The other class that I've seen turn challenging encounters into a joke is the Magus. I think every Magus I've ever seen built is basically built the same way...same recipe....scimitar, dervish dancing, shocking grasp, intensify spell, blah...blah..blah. Then, they take out the BBEG in a single blow (sometimes it takes 2 blows). This is not an exaggeration. I've now witnessed it as a player and GM multiple times.
Yes, an optimized Barbarian or optimized "whatever" (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Archer) probably can do similar table wrecking like the above. The Gunslinger and Magus seem to be built for table-wrecking from the start.
Just my two coppers worth.
Whereas I totally understand it's not PFS legal to change anything as written, as a new GM, I do see the breakdown of this inflexibility in certain situations. All too often, mostly as a player and sometimes as a GM, I see the PC's easily overwhelm a scenario and the GM's hands are tied to add any extra challenge to it. Also, I could understand a reason for this inflexibility can easily be explained since how could you just let GM's randomly modify what's written and still have it as legal play.
It would be neat if Paizo could come up with some sort of system/way to allow the tweaking of the challenge levels in a consistent manner, especially for older seasons to ramp up the challenge level a bit. Not all scenarios need this.
I realize this is pie-in-the-sky. The alternative is simply to only play GM post-third season stuff (which I've still seen scenarios that haven't exactly challenged the party).
The more books that Paizo comes out with to do even more power tweaks to PC's (traits, magic items, feats) presents ever more overwhelming party potential.
Some players think it's fun to overwhelm ("break") a scenario. When that happens with me, I find it dissatisfying and even a bit turned off.
I get that players (even me!) like to optimize their characters to the hilt. With that ever increasing power, there should be some flexible system, if necessary (and agreeable to all?) for the GM to mitigate that type of party power dynamic in a scenario.
The point of the GM is to guide play and make it fun. I don't blame the players for walking out at all. Plus, if I were them, I'd never play with the guy who instigated the entire situation to begin with, nor the GM.
Again, the stats aren't the issue. If all the PC's are equally overpowered and they are having fun, that's fine. The issue is the jerk behavior of one of the players and his pet spineless DM.
Yep...that's the point of contention...how would the spell (or caster) "know" that it's not a legitimate target? Effectively, what's to stop the caster from casting the spell on a sword? Yes, the casting would fail (as indicated in the rules)...but is a failed casting obvious to the caster? I have a feeling the answer is Yes on this one, but I don't see that explicitly spelled out anywhere.
There's no official 'flavor' on it, to my knowledge. However, if you look at the rules for saving throws it states that a caster "senses" that his spell failed if the target makes its save, so it's probably much the same. In the case of Stabilize, it can only target "one living creature", so personally I'd inform someone attempting to cast it on a dead body that it isn't a valid target for the spell.
Here's an updated version of a possible Pathfinder's Adventure Kit (albeit it would be an expensive one!):
Potion of Remove Paralysis
Scroll of Invisibility Purge
Air Crystals and/or Potion of Water Breathing
[Roll20 / Skype] 3-25: Storming the Diamond Gate (tier 3-7): Fri 17th @ 6:00pm AEDT [UTC+11] / 7:00am [UTC]