Genie

RyanH's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 7 Season Star Voter, 9 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 722 posts (4,008 including aliases). 2 reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 17 Organized Play characters. 26 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 722 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Great... I'll get MacQuaid to check in too...

Grand Lodge

Looks like just three signed up right now... Gus, Johnny, and Minea... correct?

My son and I have two firsties... played our first SFS sessions at the last PaizoCon and are looking to do some PbP. I've played alot of PFS PbP... he's new, but I'm with him to help.

RyanH - Mechanic 1 (exoskeleton)
MacQuaid - Operative

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I concur with all of the above! Been going for a few years now, and it's always a superb weekend of gaming! Everything went without a hitch for my son and me, and we got to try some new things, and meet some different Paizo staffers (I always try for lottery events with different staffers than prior years), and it's always cool running into people we've played with throughout the past conventions... sometimes the same characters are meeting up again...

PaizoCon IS a "small and laid back convention," but is big enough to have more than enough to do with all the informational seminars, actual play podcast, gaming and more. Plenty to keep us coming back!

Grand Lodge

I don't know if it's different than the normal paint, but here's what my son and I got...

Wereleopard - click for image on Flickr

Grand Lodge

Terrain always adds a cool element to a game... and this Dwarven Forge Dungeon of Doom session (even paired down from a full 14 rooms!) was a blast! The number of rooms was just about right for the length of our session and was a pretty good mix of combat and old school dungeon-delve-paranoia.

@NielsenE was a good and fair GM. Everyone at the table seemed to have a good time.

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Thanks for the great game! My son and I enjoyed the opportunity to get a taste of Pathfinder 2 while playing an engaging adventure.

Was a cool idea to get players to draw pumpkins!

Would be happy to play in other sessions run by Linda, and always cool to play an adventure with the author!

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

This was a blast. I played as a bloody skeleton and my son played as a vampire. We also had an undead giant and a ghost. We got to see a glimpse of the 2e rules while playing a wacky adventure where we all woke up as undead, in prison

Well run, funny, and a great experience!

Grand Lodge

Yes, true... if they never know of the change that would be no good! Not everyone is a forum user...

Grand Lodge

I agree about competency... could ban certain spells? But, yes, not knowing anything about the adventure, you're the best judge @NeilsenE!

Grand Lodge

This link shows that there is Express Mail service...

Have not used it, maybe call...

Grand Lodge

Saaaay... you should have us roll up higher level characters... you know, slip us some rules so we can. You can trust us...

Grand Lodge

Thanks for the info... My son and I are in the Saturday game and we're both looking forward to it! Happy to go 3rd level or higher (it IS always nice to have a bit MORE durability, and hit the more interesting builds... but happy with whatever)

In any case, excited to play in some awesome 3D Terrain!

Grand Lodge

Sweet... looking forward to it!

Grand Lodge

Majuba wrote:
So is it Pathfinder or P2E?

I'm guessing latest PLAYTEST... so neither. But I don't know... I AM in the game though...

Grand Lodge

No notice here either. Thanks for the heads up! Need to plan being available for signups end of the week then too!

Grand Lodge

So, in Carrion Crown my Magus is likely soon to be insane (the GM is using some 3rd party insanity rules), and my most likely replacement character will be Kendra Lorrimor, who recently hitched up with the party (We're in Chapter 4, Wake of the Watcher)

Here's how she was provided by the GM... I'd like to come up with a plan to level her after this that will make her fun and awesome...

Her Divining makes her great out of combat but want ideas that will make her a contributor in and out of combat,... while also following the story. She respected/admired the my Magus, so following in his footsteps makes some sense... and he's obsessed originally with storm based and electrical magics, but because of the campaign is now obsessed with necromancy. I could see her continuing to focus on divining, or put some energy into necromancy because of the magus AND her father's research. The magus has been toying with animating dead.

Level 7 - Diviner
Opposing School: Illusion, Evocation
Arcane Bond: Amulet

STR: 8
Dex: 12
Con: 12
Int: 17
Wis: 13
Cha 15

Feats:
Diviners Delving
Greater Spell Focus: Divination
Iron Will
Improved Iron Will
Scribe Scroll
Craft Wand
Spell Focus Divination

Spells
1: Charm Person, Ears of the City, Feather Fall, Identify, Liberating Command, Mage Armor, Memory Lapse, Windy Escape, Detect Secret Doors, Heightened Awareness, Hold Portal, Ray of Enfeeblement
2: Command Undead, Commune With Birds, Create Treasure Map, Demand Offering, See Invisibility, Detect Thoughts, Glitterdust
3. Blood Biography, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Suggestion, Hold Person, summon Monster III, Seek Thoughts, Slow
4: Charm Monster, Scrying, Enervation, Greater Invisibility, Mneomonic Enhancer

Magic Items
Amulet of Spell Cunning, Cloak of the Bat, Lessor Extend Metamagic Rod, Peal of Power X 2, Ring of Counter Spells (Magic Missle), Ring of Protection +1, Rod of Flame Extinguishing, Wand of Chill Touch, Wand of Command Undead, Wand of Suggestion

Given the severe lack of downtime in Carrion Crown, retraining and crafting time are limited.

Grand Lodge

David knott 242 wrote:

One obvious consequence of Jason's post is that there should be some things that everybody is at least trained in, as the game system is not set up for somebody to be actively bad at them. For example, nobody is untrained in any saving throws.

Interesting... the character sheet does have a spot for untrainted in saving throws, but that would never be checked. I guess the position is only necessary for common peasants? Or is EVERYTHING at least trained in each saving throw?

Grand Lodge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

There is a psychological component here, to be sure, but there is also a simple game "signaling" reason.

Characters, generally are only untrained in the things they should avoid doing, to give space for others to excel in those areas. Negatives help to reinforce that notion. We could shift all the math up, but we would lose that learning edge.

It's not huge, but it is worth it for now.

Thanks... that answers the original question as to what the design reason is.

Grand Lodge

I just realized, and I don't think anyone has said this...

..starting with a negative for untrained has always been the case (probably even in 5e)

in 1E, 3.5, as far back as AD&D I think, if you're proficient in your armor or weapon it's +0 as a base... if you're not-proficient (untrained) it's -4 to hit with weapons... and there are penatlies with armor... skills were just 0 if you didn't have training (or you flat out could not do the skill without training for some)

The difference is they took these multiple disperate systems that all behaved differently, and made one system for all of these things (armor, weapons, skills, spells, etc) modeled somewaht on weapon proficeincy (starting at -4 if you're untrained), and somewhat after To Hit (automatically goes up with level), and somewhat after skills (you can choose to boost some).

The -4 is a mechanic that has always been in the system, it's just become more obvious because it isn't just weapons

Edit: Just looked up 5e to see how it worked... if you are not proficient in your weapon, you just don't get your proficency bonus. So, +0 base for untrained and goes up from there as your proficency grows. (Does that mean a 20th level 5e wizard is +0 with the two-handed sword? If so, for comparison the 20th level PF2 wizard is -4 for untrained, +20 for level for +16 to hit with the two-hander.)

Grand Lodge

Draco18s wrote:


If they'd made Untrained 0 and boosted everything else by 4, they'd have to write errata for more of the book. And as it is mathematically identical, they didn't do that, because it was silly.

Plus, Untrained already had a negative modifier and it made more sense to just increase that penalty rather than shove everything around.

They intend to re-release the entire book any way... this is a playtest intended to find issues and correct them. It would be more silly to leave something sub-optimal just becuase they'd have to edit a little more. (IF it was suboptimal... not saying I'm right)

Grand Lodge

LordVanya wrote:
RyanH wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
I don't think people are going to play/not play based on whether the number is -4, -8, +0, or +206 (with all the other numbers scaled respectively).

You should have read the thread I was reading! :)

In any case... my original question stands, "what was the design goal/reasoning for penalizing with the -4 for untrained rather than going +0 as the untrained baseline."

I think many of everyone's above posts contain likely reasons... will leave this here to see if it gets a dev response.

They didn't do it for a design reason.

They did it for a psychological reason.

People were complaining that the difference between untrained and trained felt like it was too small. (Never mind that there are a lot of Skill Uses locked behind trained.)

So they made the penalty -4 so that when you look at that number on the character sheet it feels and looks like there is a more significant difference.

1) attempting to achieve a specific psychological result IS a design decision

2) I understand people wanted the gap to be larger... but that does not require the starting point to be negative, nor did that explain the original -2... this whole conversation stands if you replace -4 with the original -2.

Grand Lodge

Draco18s wrote:
I don't think people are going to play/not play based on whether the number is -4, -8, +0, or +206 (with all the other numbers scaled respectively).

You should have read the thread I was reading! :)

In any case... my original question stands, "what was the design goal/reasoning for penalizing with the -4 for untrained rather than going +0 as the untrained baseline."

I think many of everyone's above posts contain likely reasons... will leave this here to see if it gets a dev response.

Grand Lodge

JoelF847 wrote:
I vastly prefer untrained being at a negative rather than 0. I want my characters to be bad at things they don't know how to do. I know I'm pretty awful at things I have zero skill at - no matter how good I am at some things, learning languages and playing musical instruments are things I'm completely untrained at (despite having actually taking lessons/classes in them). I want to be able to build characters who are also bad at things they don't know how to do, because, that's how life works.

But things that are difficult should just be a higher DC... otherwise, untrained at jumping is -4 and untrained at computer programming is -4... that makes no sense that I'm equally as bad at those to things and have an equal chance of success... the DC is what matters. And my lack of training is +0... I have no bonuses for training and no minuses for being exceptionally low intelligence or low strength etc.

So to you wanting to be bad at things... having untrained be zero, and all DC's being higher does the same thing.

I imagine what you're saying here though is the design reason. They wanted people to feel crappy at the things they aren't trained in. But, lest a designer chimes in, we won't know the actual reasons.

I know the -4 really turns off some people... I actually saw this argument brought up in another venue, and I agreed with the concerns, but not the vitriol (clearly not someone hoping to help make Pathfinder 2.0 a shining success.)... so in any case, knowing that some people will be turned off by penalizing players (and resulting in a negative gameplay experience for them), I was curious as to the reason.

I don't really care either way for MY experience (though I DO think +0 at untrained makes sense as the baseline), I agree with the sentiment that you should suck at stuff and it does not give me a negative feeling. BUT if we could attract more players by having a positive game-play feel for them (while achieving the exact same mathematical results as we have with the -4) then I vote for increasing our player-base and making Pathfinder more successful... cuz that's what I want.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t know... seems like if I have “no training” I’d be at +0 ... that seems like a more intuative baseline. And go up from zero.

Negatives, or PENALTIES would happen if I was hampered, had low ability scores (below average), etc... the negative, is a penalty. Positives are training, boosts, enhancements, etc. zero is the average person trying a thing.

Base of zero seems 1) more intuitive and 2) isn’t penalizing the player (which again, just doesn’t make people excited to roll dice)

The spread between untrained and legendary is a different question and a different design decision.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Cuz of the perception of playing with negatives everywhere vs all advancement starts from zero and you increase. Psychology.

It is the same, so why at baseline cause the negative feeling of a -4 and why cause Extra (albeit simple) math from the get go. (Imagine that first player on their first time with their first 1at level character... “I rolled an 18!”... “sorry, no, you have to apply -4 to most of those skills”... just a negative experience right out the gate)

My question (not my complaint) is, “what is the design philosophy behind starting at negative” as I’m sure it wasn’t arbitrary.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Can someone point me to a thread about the math, or at least an explanation for why we start at -4 for proficiency? What's the reasoning for it.

Why not start at 0 for untrained, then boost as you gain... trained would be +4, etc. And just boost all the DC's by four? This seems so much more positive for the players. Instead of having a bunch of depression-inducing -4's, the character gains a boost (not just erases a negative) when they get trained.

I know that Paizo recently increased the gap between untrained and trained by reducing untrained from -2 to -4... and reduced some DCs. But couldn't we have done the same thing by upping untrained to +2... wouldn't even have had to lower DCs in that case.

Again, my objective here is to get pointed to a discussion on why the design decision to make "Trained" being +0 is important, why choose starting at -4.

Grand Lodge

ENHenry wrote:

I love that mage armor is 24 hours now from first level onward.

I also love that spellcasters don’t need to tote around crossbows, they can use cantrips as a reliable attack regularly.

I think that because of this, wizards shouldn't be proficient in ANY weapons... because why would they be? Or at least less weapons... certainly not a crossbow. Why would they ever whip out a crossbow in wizard school?

Grand Lodge

For the Playtest I'm going by the rules and it's just a normal failure.

Outside the Playtest for our home games (not PFS), I'll use critical miss results (like Paizo's critical failure deck)... I like the potential issues that arise from fumbling, I also want to discourage everyone from just always attacking three times counting on that nat 20. If you're wildly swinging, a third time, then there's a chance you're gonna screw up big!

Again... for the Playtest, by the rules.

Grand Lodge

We talked quite a bit about it at our table... if you were ON FIRE, or BURNING WITH ACID... most reasonable people would be spending all their "actions" trying the heck to stop it!

But then, also how cool will it be to be the Bad A## high level guy, walking through the fray, hacking up the bad guys, ON FIRE.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
RyanH wrote:

Natural 20 being a crit is iconic to D&D... having to confirm that crit spoiled that special thing in a frequent and disappointing way, but served the purpose of making it not always just a 5% chance. They solved the "not just a 5% chance" with the DC + 10 rules, while keeping the nat 20 celebration-inducing roll.

And a nat 20 if you can't otherwise hit is just a hit, not a crit, right?

I do think skill checks still should not have an auto succeed. As some things just can't be done.

Natural 20 being a crit was added to D&D at the exact same time as confirmation rolls - AD&D1e and 2e didn't have crits at all, at least not officially. (Combat and Tactics added crits to 2e, but they worked very differently - they required an 18+ and hitting by at least 5).

In the rules or not, I think it was pretty common practice and AD&D with nat 20's being double damage is how I remember it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Natural 20 being a crit is iconic to D&D... having to confirm that crit spoiled that special thing in a frequent and disappointing way, but served the purpose of making it not always just a 5% chance. They solved the "not just a 5% chance" with the DC + 10 rules, while keeping the nat 20 celebration-inducing roll.

And a nat 20 if you can't otherwise hit is just a hit, not a crit, right?

I do think skill checks still should not have an auto succeed. As some things just can't be done.

Grand Lodge

Ludovicus wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.

So far, so good on the action system. Not much play time, but explaining it was a lot faster than move/standard/swift/immediate/full-round action and the first combat went smoothly.

Yeah, but let's say I want to actually use my character's feats or class abilities--like Rage, Hunt Target, Power Attack, or various short-term buffs--in a way that will actually make me more effective.

Because of the action economy, the action(s) required to do this always come at the opportunity coat of another attack. Should I spend an action to start raging, getting +2 damage on all my hits this round and the following two, or use it to take another swing with my greataxe, getting a chance of 1d12+4 up front?

This is an arithmetic problem: the answer depends on the circumstance. (What's my target's AC? How many other attacks over the next three rounds am I likely to be able to attempt?) The new action economy makes these problems SUPER COMMON, which I take to be part of marshmallow's point. I guarantee you that they'll eat up way more game time than explaining how a full action equals a move plus a standard, you get one swift or immediate action on top of that which refreshes at the end of each turn (where the only difference otherwise is that you can take immediate action when it's not your turn), and you can also take a five-foot-step on top of that if you don't otherwise move.

I wouldn't call this a problem so much as a choice... and yes, certainly, if you're going to run the math, it's going to bog down the game. I love having these choices... do I just swing now thinking the opponent is going to go down, or do I think this battle is going long, in which case the long term benefits of rage will help? I don't know the math, but I'm going to need to make a choice.... I like that, and am comfortable in not knowing what the optimal answer is at every given moment.

Grand Lodge

They can also spend all three actions trying... each attempt give an immediate roll (at 15)... and it's unclear BUT at the end of the round you take damage and then get a roll to stop it.

SO... I THINK in one round you could get four attempts at DC 15 to end it... possibly just three if you had to use a manipulate action to get the acid off.

Given someone sinking and needing help out of the quicksand, as well as people with persistent damage, they didn't have a lot of action to focus on the Ankrev... was a potentially deadly encounter.

I loved the quick sand mechanics... was some great tropey-cinematics there.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
it just didn't FEEL like Pathfinder or D&D 3e (or even 4e).

Interesting. I have not yet played the Doomsday Playtest, but I demoed a game at PaizoCon... and my comment after that was that while being a little different, it FELT like playing Pathfinder.

Hope to play more soon.

Grand Lodge

zlefin wrote:

definitely a design choice; the entire design of p2 seems to center around having minimal variation between different characters of the same level. Not just attack rolls, but also stuff like defenses, ac, skill rolls, there's very very few ways to modify them, and they're all tightly regulated. No more stuff like skill focus to get a +3 to one skill.

So the expected values for say, a lvl 10 rogue, will be very similar no matter how they're built.

It also makes me wonder though: where's the 11? with the default rules you can't get 11 in a stat. The numbers are chosen for purely legacy reasons; but odd numbers below 18 basically don't exist in the new stats system. Seems odd to use numbers like this but then ignore half of them. For us long-term users we know it exists for legacy reasons/compatibility; but for a new player, one might wonder why the intervening numbers can't exist.

They said in a panel at GenCon that the 18 point abilities were one of the legacy things that they could have easily dumped in favor of just tracking the bonuses... I forget why they said they kept it... I think because people seemed to prefer it how it's always been or something (and when you're jumping a single point at 18+ it matters... also matters a little if you're rolling I think, a person starting with an odd will get to 20 one stat boost earlier.)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
RyanH wrote:
Resonance DOES limit magic, make it more special... I like that.

Where does this impression come from? It must be a personal thing because I have never experienced in over 30 years of gaming. In every single group I have played, even if you spend the time to create some history or Flavour, it's "what does it do" and it's either useful and used, or scribbled somewhere and forgotten until an opportunity to offload it arises.

Nobody I know cares that it's "Dragonstar, the mace of Orgood the mighty and lost to time for 400 years" it'll still get scribbled down as "mace +2 - sell".

Having a +2 ring, +1 cloak, +3 Armor, +4 sword is boring and required in PF1... eliminating the need for these +'s allows for a ring of invisibility (does not get ignored), Flaming sword (does not get ignored), etc... "Mace +2 to sell" is the problem... in PF1 you get a Cloak of the Bat for instance you sell it so you can buy a Cloak of Resistance +2 as you MUST have at this level to be effective.

To correct my prior statement, resonance alone does not make magic special... the inherent level bonus in everything is the primary thing eliminating the need for the big six. Resonance just serves to further limit how much of a Christmas tree you're going to be.

I agree that no one cares about "Dragonstar, the mace of Orgood the mighty and lost to time for 400 years" if you're going to make that just a +2 mace. It has to DO something cool.

Grand Lodge

I think they said in the GenCon Twitch streams that there will be an errata that everyone is trained in unarmored defense.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I need to playtest for sure... but I don't want to feel limited with use of my magic items. Don't want to have to horde the points (They say that most parties never ran out of resonance... but is that because they were hording and would have spent more if they could?)

Again... I NEED to play test... just a concern at this point. (Also, in my PF1 games, I'll start tracking how often I use magic items that would cost resonance in PF2)

I mean, consider a Bag of Holding, which I presume will take 1 resonance to open? Now we have to carefully consider when we open it... hold on to as much loot as we can until we're encumbered, and then put it in all at once... "But before we open this, does anyone need anything out of it... this is the ONLY time I'm opening this today!" ... "Oh crap, I blew my resonance, I can't open this bag! Can you?"

Resonance DOES limit magic, make it more special... I like that. But if I have a special item... say, Cloak of the Bat or something interesting, I don't want to be afraid to use it because I may need healing.

Maybe a hero point could also be used to allow an additional use of resonance... (though we'll be hoarding those to not die.

Grand Lodge

GLD wrote:

I'm gonna argue the point about magic items. Magic items have always been a broken system, as long as any 3.X system has existed. The entire game is balanced with the expectation that players are loaded down with boring magic items to shore up Attack Bonus, Saves and AC in order to remain remotely competitive with the basic threats of the game. So at higher levels, it's tantamount to suicide to go anywhere without two rings, a necklace, magic boots, magic armour, magic belt, magic cape, magic underwear, a few magic weapons, a circlet and so on.

Now, I'm not totally sure if resonance really helps with that issue, as I'm still going over the book in finer detail after my initial glossing over, but something DEFINITELY needs to be done about that.

Resonance does not solve THAT issue. That was solved by doing things like, magic armor bonuses also apply to saves, you get your level to attacks, AC, and Saves... etc... these bonuses that used to use the BIG SIX are now inherent.

Resonance is to prevent people spamming "cheaper" items and encourage people to instead buy and use the wand of cure serious wounds instead CLW.

Edit: and yes, per a later entry, helps limit what they're wearing, without having "slots."

I think resonance will result in people not using their magic items (like Boots of Elven Kind give you ONE ROUND of bypassing difficult terrain, plus a constant agility modifier), would likely never blow a resonance point on that as I need to save that for my key magic items (that give me more bang for the buck) AND I might need that point for when I need to drink a potion.

Grand Lodge

Given the addition of level to attack, the fighter looks like, even when legendary proficiency with a weapon will only have a +2 bonus above a Wizard that takes either a weapon proficiency or Fighter Dedication (and is hanging out at expert proficiency)...

Curious how well the Wizard/Fighter Dedication would hold out versus a fighter, even in melee, withholding his magic. I think that'll be my first task, build both and throw them in an arena.

Grand Lodge

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Kind of a waste of perfectly good spellcaster corpses. The first one to detonate will destroy all the others, unless they're in careful formation---not something zombies are known for.

Ah... they're not created with cheap/low level Animate Undead either... they're created with Create Greater Undead... so, yeah, a more valuable resource to just be blowing up.

Still would be nice to have a few and send them to strategic areas to all blow on command. But, also at that level, probably much worse things you can have them do than 10d8 damage.

Grand Lodge

Any reason a wizard couldn't animate a bunch of Spellgorged Zombies and load them up with Detonate spells?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feyliya wrote:
Thanks for telling me that the hotel rooms are usually without refrigerators, Silbeg! I haven't been in a room without one in ages, so I assumed there was one there by default. I'll have to call them and make sure we get a room with a fridge since we have medication that needs to be kept cold.

Be sure to call early, and let them know you have a medical need. Don't wait until close to arrival or the day of. Anytime I've ever asked about a fridge, they've been tapped out and none were available.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Society Scenario #8-99C: The Solstice Scar Version C (Tiers 1-2)
Sunday evening, 7:00–11:59 pm • Grand Ballroom

Listed multiple times to try to break out by tier.

Was off the schedule for a bit as they made a correction. (Maybe that's when you were looking)

Grand Lodge

Yes... no hiccups in the system! Great work tech team!

Grand Lodge

hmm... this is mainly what's offered... best of these?

Pathfinder Society Scenario #9–17: Oath of the Overwatched (For Levels 5–9) <-- will sign up for

Pathfinder Society Scenario #9–09: Beyond the Halflight Path (For Levels 3–7)
Pathfinder Society Scenario #9–15: The Bloodcove Blockade (For Levels 3–7)
Pathfinder Society Scenario #9–19: The Clash in Kaimuko Wood (For Levels 5–9)
Pathfinder Society Scenario #9–21: In the Grandmaster’s Name (For Levels 3–7)

Grand Lodge

Thanks... will add that one then...

Tough to balance the PFS, SFS, and Playtest we want to play!

Grand Lodge

Is it ok to play Oath without playing Call of the Copper Gate (looks like that one is not offered...) I mean I know you CAN...

Most of those ideas aren't at the con... I really do need to play more in the early season...

A couple of the recommended 1-5 level scenarios are offered, I've got more low level chars, but my son just has the one level 6. seems like a waste to start a 1st level at this point... when he only does society at PaizoCon.

Grand Lodge

Almost signed up for Harskkeep... sad, 12-5PM... I can't skip TWO days of work... :( Won't even be in until around 5...

Grand Lodge

Thanks all!

He's 15, and that sounds like it'd be ok.

Nature themed faction sounds interesting... I'll have to let him know.

I've done nothing from this season... all I've done since PaizoCon 17 has been Starfinder, Emerald Spire, and running through an old season.

1 to 50 of 722 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>