Secane's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. 2,155 posts (2,178 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 26 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 2,155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

MrCharisma wrote:

What levels are you planning on playing with this character?

At level 15 an Evangelist Cleric gets access to 8th level spells, Inspire Heroics and swift action Bardic Performance, so if this is where you're finishing your character it's probably not the power-gaming option.

If you're playing to level 20 then you're not really losing much, just pushing things back a bit.

Also it depends on the boons a bit. Milani's 2nd boon is basically +1 to Inspire Courage for ine (long) combat per day. The 3rd boon will help in certain circumstances.

I understand that we will be playing till lv 19.

The 2nd boon is what my party needs, more saves. I can get it now. Or at lv 16 if I'm a pure cleric.

@zza and avr,
Thanks for pointing out prestigious spell caster. Too bad it's not PFS legal.

Anyone with advice on high level cleric spells?

Lantern Lodge

zza ni wrote:
is the feat that let you add caster level to prestige class not PFS legal?

Woa! What the name of the feat?

I only know of the trait that ups your caster level by up to 2.
But that trait don't up your spells slots :(

Lantern Lodge

I'm finalizing the rebuild of my lv 15 (PFS) Character into a Evangelist Cleric. (Got the rebuild thanks to him having 14 levels of Lore Warden)
I'm planning to take up the Evangelist Prestige class, but I'm torn over if it's worth the 1 caster level deduction over being a pure cleric?

The main feature of the evangelist class is early access to a deity's Deific obedience boons. At lv 15,thats only 1 level away from the 2nd boon.

Had anyone played a high level cleric before? Is the Evangelist PrC worth it for high level play? Or is more spells better?

Character is a Dwarf Cleric of Milani. Focusing on casting and buffing

Lantern Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OMG, the Vigilant Seal is pathfinder's SCP Foundation!

Vigilant Seal - “protect, contain, and destroy.”

SCP - "Secure, Contain, Protect"

Lantern Lodge

Not sure if this link would be of use to your situation, but its written by one of the best grapple builders in this forum.

Pouncing Grappler (Monk 1 / Shifter 4 / Barbarian X)

Lantern Lodge

Hi Bruno! Thanks for working on this guide.

Can I ask why is Grapple working on creatures up to 2 sizes larger than you considered a downgrade?
Should it be a plus if you can use grapple on more targets?

Lantern Lodge

There are many parts of Golarion not yet detailed, like the continents of Casmaron, Vudra, Arcadia and Sarusan. And lower half of Garund.

Will these places be detailed in Pathfinder 2?

*Edit: And would already published places like Tian Xia be updated?
(Sorry for the extra question)

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Oh mind, you said it Skystarlit1. Those are the points that have us all unhappy.
*I don't agree with every point and I do feel there should be more to the list, but its pretty much spot on.

On point 2. I'm playing in 5ed right now. The limit on the difference between someone trained in a skill and someone who is not, feels very unrealistic.
It breaks the suspension of disbelief, when a weak in strength character can move something that a clearly stronger character can't.

On point 6. I want to compare Skyrim and Dragon Age. Both are great RPGs, but you know why people still play Skyrim years later? (Other then mods)
Cos Skyrim don't force a backstory into the gameplay. You are whoever YOU want to be. You write your story!
*Both are CRPGs

It makes the story and your character come alive! Cos whatever you do, you earn it in someway. It becomes a living game, not just a number cruncher.

Should a game give some reward for a character's backstory? Yes
Should a game be heavy handed in enforcing backstory as part of a character and tied it to game mechanics? No! It pigeonhole a character into a certain role and don't allow a character to grow out of it (not organically atleast)

Once something is a game mechanic, people will compare them. Guides and players would start picking 1 over another for their game benefits.
*Look at Reactionary (+2 trait bonus on initiative checks). Its a trait you will find on more characters then any other trait in PFS. Everyone's character seems to have been bullied as a child. Did people pick that for backstory? Or for its mechanical benefits?

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Br11741 wrote:
I’m not talking about a GM rolling behind a screen, I’m talking about a GM rolling for the player. Skill check that have the Secret Trait are rolled by the GM not the player.


Have the player roll for it, then before the dice stop rolling, cover it with the GM screen and only the GM gets to see the results.

So now, the player gets to roll and the GM gets to play out the results.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Kondenado, as a metric system user, I have to agree with John Lynch 106.
Imperial does feel more old timey. After all it came about organically. Even the terms used in imperial, like pounds, meant different amounts in difference places in real life. Imperial itself is kinda forced to standardise somewhat in the modern age.

Metric is really good in real life, but remember its origin. It came about after a large number of countries decided to standardise units of measurement. To help improve trade, makes life easier for everyone and basically be less confusing.

Since Golarion only uses 1 common system (as far as we know). There isn't a need to have metrics, as everyone is using that one system.
From a system, story and history (in-world Golarion) perspective, there isn't a need.

The more science-based Starfinder on the other hand... lol...

Lantern Lodge

Steve Geddes wrote:
Congratulations to all of those successful and commiserations to those who weren't.

Your sympathy is much appreciated. 4 waves... still no win in sight...

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The play test, as is, feels like programming language. It make sense from a system coding point of view, but the end user may not understand or use it well.

This means the system really don't look nice to readers as is.

PF2 needs to sell the story too and not the just the math.

Lantern Lodge

*Spoilers Alert!*
*Too many possible spoiler information to hide behind a Spoiler button

I got hold of this AP recently and I'm planning to run it in the near future.

While reading the first book, I noticed that the "clear spindle ioun stone", specifically its resonance's power, is an important plot device.

Namely, the clear spindle ioun stone used to grand a permanent mind protecting effect as per protection from evil as its resonance power and this effect is part of the AP's story.
However, in the newer Adventurer's Guide, this was changed to a daily casting of protection from. Or as an immediate action to cast protection from, but doing so as an immediate action would render the ioun stone powerless forever.

Checking through the books, clear spindle ioun stones are given as possible loot in the other books.

So which version of the clear spindle ioun stone's renounce power should these stones have? The original permanent version that the story itself relies on or the newer weaken version in the Adventurer's Guide?

Or alternatively choose to use the newer version as "weakened over time" versions of the original?

*Side note: I'm flabbergasted that the AP actually relies on an item's power that was "nerfed" just months before the AP published as an important plot device.

Lantern Lodge

After reading through it all, I'm actually very concern about the order system for druids.
It seems very limiting when compared to the other classes's ability to pick up different class features.

It feels like druids are being shoe horned into various roles based on their order. So a storm druid would literally be only be able to be a blaster type character etc.

This is not the case with the current druid. Two players can play say a Bear Shaman archetype druid now and turn up at the table with very different play styles and character concepts. One can be a summoner and the other focus on wildshaping. A 3rd druid player can even focus on making use of a domain etc.

Reading all these playtest blogs have my 4ed memories screaming out in warning! The math is there! But where is the love?

*Edit: It also feels similar to how 5ed's limited Cleric's Domains, which would force your cleric in to specific roles they can't break out off.

Lantern Lodge

Evilserran wrote:

@secane can you explain "can blow anything apart" ? kind of vague. The horn which is new to me, says it increases performance level variant by 6, but doesnt do increased damage for a sound striker, although albeit could use 1-2 more words, but that's about all i see.

As for thundercaller, I'll give it a look see, but this is a PFS char, so i would have to retrain, i believ ei ma currently level 3

1-2 more words is like 4d6 to 8d6 more damage, which is quite a lot of damage. Especially given that its sonic dmg, which is rarely resisted.

Three Reasons to Live makes a soundstriker from a pretty good archetype to a really good archetype.

Are there better damage builds out there? Sure. But Three Reasons to Live + Soundstriker is well in the top damage builds.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Iomedae protects!

Just finished playing a great 10-11 tier Core game with my Cleric of Iomedae and it was... great!

In the last fights, I was using Glory Domain's Divine Presence (Su) every turn to rob the enemies of the chance to hurt my party.

In classic PFS, the Glory domain is hardly pick by anyone. And if they do, they would often pick the heroic subdomain instead, thanks to the heroism aura. There are just so many other better options for most clerics to pick from.

But here in Core games, the Glory domain really shines! And its helped by the whole party winning initiative. (Improve Initiative is also very popular here in Core games. Feats that people usually couldn't be bother with in Classic.)

I just had to delay till after my party had made their attacks, before throwing up Divine Presence and seeing the enemies struggle to even land hits on my party. I'm not even a caster cleric with a way high wis to boot! But a melee combat cleric with 20 str.

Love the fact that in Core the party actually works better together. We have to rely more on each other to succeed!

Lantern Lodge

Three Reasons to Live is so OP when used with a Soundstriker!

6 levels higher! My friend plays a bard with Three Reasons to Live in PFS and he can pretty much blow anything apart.

Lantern Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...
They are a nice/interesting option. They are not a fixed class feature.

Does this means spellcasting could still be an option for rangers?

Also, the Hunt Target and Traps/Snares is giving this Ranger preview a very strong feeling of World of Warcraft(WOW)'s Hunter.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Varun Creed wrote:

Now that I'm thinking a bit more about Resonance.. What about switching it from a resource that you spend to a capacity that you build up?

[[M]] Magical Resonance
Your body can only handle a certain capacity of magic resonating with your spirit. Your maximum resonance is your level + your Charisma modifier on each day. Any action or investment that costs a [[M]] counts up to this maximum capacity.
If your body tries to resonate with more magic, there is a chance your body will reject the magic. If you're at maximum resonance, you can attempt to activate or invest an item anyway. You need to attempt a flat check (a d20 roll with no modifiers) against a DC equal to 10 + the number of points you go over your maximum resonance capacity. So the first item has a 50% chance of working, and it gets more risky from there.

I really like this proposal. It reminds me of how the over use of magic is handled in some fantasy settings.

For example, in the circle of magic books, magical healing gets harder on a person who have received too much magical healing. The mage describes it in-world as the lingering older healing spells are fighting the fresher newer healing spells.

Pathfinder 2 needs to stop looking at the system purely from a mechanical or math only view and focus too on the flavor and in-world setting.
Both the math and flavor needs to work hand in hand for a good game system.

Otherwise PF2 would be no different from 4ed D&D, where the math and need to balance everything was made to the point that the game resembles a very stale CRPG instead. Turn away the very people that come to Pathfinder.

Really hope that the designers are taking our words to heart. We are not posting to spite Pathfinder 2.0. A new system is great! Especially after so many years of material build up in PF1.0.

We are posting, cos we really care about Pathfinder and want PF2.0 to be great and fun to play in.
Don't alienate your fans just for the sake of change.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:

P1: Then I'll drink my Dragon's Breath Potion and show him what real morning's breath smells like!

P2: Don't be stupid, you only have 2 RP left. Complete waste of the potion and you'll be SOL if you get knocked out.

P1: Oh yeah, never mind I'll just full attack then.

This is a good example of why Resonance(RP) just seems odd. Its purely mechanical and don't make sense from a roleplay point of view.

How is Resonance even explained in-world? That's something that really needs to be thought out first.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trinkets and Treasures wrote:
"items have levels now"

Where have I seen that before.... its just so familiar....

Oh right!

....4th Edition D&D....

Lantern Lodge

Shield Yourself! wrote:
and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

Does this means that if a character is very proficient in using a shield, but is bad with armor, would actually be worse off when using a shield?

How would this affect character ideals that don't wear/use armor, only shields?
Like a Spartan that uses only Shield and spear?

Or a Viking-type that may use a shield, but may not focus too much on armor?

Lantern Lodge

You are giving away all your PF stuff? Wow! Thats really nice and generous of you Steve! Thank you

I'm putting in for Kingmaker too. Can't believe you have an entire set to give away. I'm GMing into book 3 and it would be great to have a physical book vs using only PDFs.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

The problem with linking it to a character is that will limit the tables that said player can participate in, or alternatively, what other players can bring to the table.

If, for example, one has a martial, and they are a very good martial, but that becomes the 'favored character', then that can bump someone else who *also* designated their martial character as 'favored' unless the party wants to encounter a significantly increased difficulty (depending on scenario).

I can't speak for anyone else, but the nightmare of sitting down to a table with say, five other barbarians (because they were all designated as 'favorite') becomes a distinct possibility, or the table may not fire.

It's not a *bad* idea, but... it could reduce the effectiveness of the 'fix' significantly.

This is already a present situation at tables now. People may bring characters for a particular faction to play, resulting in too many characters of a one class/role etc. Or they may only have certain characters being of the right level/tier to play.

Not knowing who you will be playing with a table is one of the main facets of PFS play.

Do you really turn someone away for playing the 5th barbarian at the table? Or pick and choose who gets in a party and who is denied?

If the goal is to always have the "correct" combination at the table, then why play PFS? Why not just make your own homebrew party, where you will always be playing with the "correct" party make up.

The randomness of a party make up is part and parcel of PFS play. PFS is a public organized play, so the party make up is always expected to be different.

This randomness is likely to still be there even in PFS2,0

Sandra Wilkinson wrote:
It also means that when they level out of low tier they again have issues playing, if low teir is in demand

At the least, they will have 1 character each season to restart from low level.

Not to mention they can take the slow XP track to DOUBLE the amount of low level scenarios they can replay.

If character death is a worry, then it could be added that if your favored character dies, you can make a new one from level 1. (Not sure if this is likely to be abused.)
If not, this could be a good opportunity to remind players that they should be careful with their characters and that the party can pool resources to rise dead a fellow player.

By the time replay players level out of low tier, the newer players would likely have reach mid tier as well, meaning there will be a demand for more mid and higher tier games.

There is a clear dislike of total unlimited replay, as seen by the number of post by other player, including VCs and other VOs. It would not be possible to come up with a system that satisfy everyone perfectly.

That said, the system for replay-ability post PFS2.0, should be one that everyone can work with to some degree. One that does not alienate the player/GM base.

My proposal for Option 2a, is to allow constant replay with a set limit. It rewards players who plays every year (Since its one character per season.), without resorting to something system breaking like unlimited replay.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Back to the 5 given options, I would like to suggest a variant of Option 2

Option 2—Favored Character: This model allows each participant to select one Pathfinder Society PC to ignore all replay restrictions. That could mean playing a new PC all the way from 1st level to 20th, or you could make an 8th-level PC your favored character in order to play through all of the Tier 7–11 and higher adventures. Whatever the case, everyone would be able to fulfill that limitless story with another PC.

Option 2a— Seasonal Favored Character: Same as Option 2, but each participant can select a new favored character at the start of each Season (Seasons start and end at each year's Gencon date.)

This means that each year, a PFS player/GM can always replay scenarios with 1 character of their choice.
This give players something new to try out at all times, without actually having unlimited play.

It also avoids other issues like replay burn out or replay abuse. And allow new and older players to play together at the same table.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

@Gummy Bear,

Its really no difference from how rangers can select small cats, but not big ones. Many archetypes have restrictions, its all part of being an archetype, you win some you lose some.

Slyme wrote:

John Compton has specifically stated they are allowing Grizzly Bears to use the Owlbear boon...I just wasn't sure if I could do it now, or it I have to wait for them to update the Additional Resources before I could.

John's Post

Thank you for the link!

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Is the Grizzly Bear really a valid option for this boon?

Owlbear Boon:
Owlbear Companion: You recovered a clutch of owlbear eggs and may raise one of the hatchlings as a pet. If you possess a class feature that permits you to take a bear as an animal companion or mount that progresses as an animal companion, you may instead gain the service of an owlbear. The owlbear companion uses the stats of a bear companion with the following modifications: all Handle Animal checks made to train or handle the owlbear suffer a –4 penalty; the bonus granted by the devotion ability increases to +5; the creature’s starting Charisma score is 10; and the animal companion looks like an owlbear instead of a normal bear. This owlbear is considered an animal for all purposes.

Given that the boon specifically call out "take a bear as an animal companion"?

Could this be an example of similar naming? Like how the Swashbuckler Weapon Training (Ex), may have the work Weapon Training in it, but its considered a totally different class feature from a Fighter's Weapon Training (Ex) and can't be used to qualify from advanced weapon training?

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@wraithstrike, Your break down of FoM is correct.

Once you have FoM on, the vast majority of movement restricting effects would just fail on you.

Even something like Tanglefoot bag would fail. Its kinda covered in by FoM spell description.

I know you are trying to find a way to get past FoM's protections using a mundane means, but it just doesn't work that way.
You would need dispel or a Barbarian's Spell Sunder to break it.

A clever Spellcaster can dispel or better yet switch to using the environment against a target under the effects of FoM.
If you can't use black tentacle, then maybe blow up the ceiling and have it collapse on the target. FoM can't help someone trapped under a ton of rocks.

For martial characters, stop trying to grapple or restrict someone under FoM, just beat the target up! FoM don't protect a target from damage or attack of opportunities.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will there likely be a new world/region setting book for Golarion or the Inner Sea region in the PF2.0?

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Nok Gaan wrote:
It is humorous to see people say unlimited replay killed 4E while ignoring the fact 5E is going bonkers and it also has unlimited replay. You could easily say unlimited replay is a boon to the system using the 5E rational and would make just as much sense.
Assuming it's true that unlimited replay is the reason 5e OP is succeeding. I have to wonder if it's because unlimited replay is simply good for a campaign or because 5e OP has so few scenarios that unlimited replay allows more games to go off. PFS has such a vast library of scenarios, APs, and modules at this point that unlimited replay isn't needed for most players.

I just started playing 5ed's Adventure League(AL) and there are plenty of scenarios (5ed call them modules) available for play. I understand that AL is in its 7th season and moving on to its 8th. Not sure on how long is a season.

For a long list of 5ed AL Modules have a look at this list here. Click the tabs to see the different list of modules.

Locally, my area has a very dedicated core group of PFS GMs and players. However it is clear that we are vastly out numbered by 5ed AL players and GMs. This is not the case even a year or 2 ago.

5ed's AL has spring up very quickly in my area. Main cos AL:
1) Has games every day/night at various games stores around the city.
2) And they can have these large numbers of games, cos the modules can be ran over and over again. AL actually REWARDS DMs and players with extra XP when a DM has ran a module for a few times.
3) This constant availability of games, means 5ed AL is very visible to new players. They can easily look up and join a game, any day of the week.
4) 5ed itself is very easy to jump into. (This is due mainly to how 5ed works.)
5) D&D is a recognized brand in table top

As for PFS in my area? A few years back we started out just like AL, we ran games every night of the week. It was a really fun time and we got plenty of players.

Now? We only run a game once a week. Usually it alternates between the latest new scenario or a game for new players.
Not able to replay means older players can't play with newer players easily. They can only end up on the same table if its a new scenario or an evergreen.


Those of us that play PFS, love PF and would likely play on for quite some time, but its very difficult for us to get new players. We just don't have the visibility.

Breakdown of issues PFS faces in my area
1) PFS lack visibility compared to other organized play groups like 5ed AL.
2) This lack of visibility means we can't get new players to join easily, as they often end up being absorbed by other organized play that runs more frequently like 5ed AL.
3) The lack of visibility is due to us unable to run games often.
4) Because most older players can't play older scenarios that they have already played and new Scenarios only come out like 2 per month.
5) Which means we are back to the first issue, which is a lack of visibility.

I do hope everyone can see we are in a Egg and the Chicken situation here. We can't get an egg, cos we don't have a chicken, and we can't get a chicken, cos we lack eggs.

Our Core group of PFS players and GMs can't grow our group, cos its very hard to get new players in without having more visibility.
This are just the facts of our current situation. PFS vs AL is like a PC game vs a mobile game. One is just going to be way more accessible then the other. In that view, it could also explain why both groups draw in a different kind of player/GM.

To the OP, which method is best? The one that can bring people back to playing Pathfinder and STAY playing Pathfinder.


On that note, here are some interesting notes on 5ed AL:
- All their modules are re-playable and this allows them to run plenty of games.
- The AL games are very abuse-able. This is due to how AL works.
- Why abuse-able? Cos usually only the modules with better rewards are constantly being run.
- Each AL module has the potential to reward the party as a whole 1 magical item, that the party members must then decide or roll-off to see who gets it,
- Since 5ed DOES NOT balance how magic items work, it means magic items of the same "rarity" are all not equal.
- So a player may end up with a winged boots (limited, slower flight and uses a attunement slot), while another may get a broom of flying (unlimited flight, no slot needed). AL threats both items as of equal value. Even if it is clear that one item is vastly more superior then another.
- This means DMs would usually only run those modules that give the "better" items, cos why not?

- Interestingly, there have been an announcement recently that the 8th Season of 5ed AL would make major changes to the way EXP and magic items are rewarded. The changes make AL behave a lot more like PFS now.
XP is being change to a fix number of games. Gold reward is no longer decided by the GM, but a fix number and magic item reward is based on the number of hrs played by the character. Characters can use the number of hrs played to "purchase" magic items off certain tables.
I guess they must have realized that the current AL is very chaotic and not in a good way.
Check out AL Season 8

Lantern Lodge

VRMH wrote:
Does anyone have any good remarks to bump this thread with? I'm running out of inane babblings.

Its at 400++ FAQ requests and NO REPLY? *Shock

I know Paizo staff can be very busy, but this does warrant a look at by the Paizo design team.

At the very least, it should be clear that there is a significant number of people that feel strongly enough about this for it to be addressed as a FAQ candidate.
Its a disservice to customers to ignore a topic with such a high number of FAQ request.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I didnt know about those Talismans. I used the unfettered shirt which allowed me to use FoM once per day. It's 5000 gp, which also isn't bad.

Unfettered shirt cost 10k. It is 5k to craft it.

Its price is why some prefer the talisman.

Lantern Lodge

FoM is not more weaker or powerful then plenty of other spells.

Spells are just able to do stuff that beyond the norm. That is why it is called magic.

If FoM is powerful, then what is raise dead, haste or wish?

Lantern Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:

Translated into Pathfinder-ese (without making any special effort to balance it for power), it would probably look like this:

School conjuration (creation); Level: Druid 1

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Components: V, S, M (a mushroom / toadstool)

Range: See text

Effect: cloud spreads in 5-ft. radius.

Duration: 2 round/level

Saving Throw: Fortitude negates; see text; Spell Resistance no

This spell turns a fungus into a throwable splash weapon with a 10 foot range increment.
The fungus must be thrown as a separate action after casting the spell. If it is not thrown before the duration expires, the enchantment is lost.

The thrown fungus creates a cloud with 10 foot diameter where it lands. The cloud lasts 1d3+1 rounds but can be dispersed after one round by any strong wind.

The cloud is visible but does not block vision. Living creatures in the cloud become nauseated on a failed save. This condition lasts as long as the creature is in the cloud and for one round after it leaves. Any creature that succeeds on its save but remains in the cloud must continue to save each round on your turn. This is a poison effect.

As written this spell is WAY TOO OP.

Why? Cos its effectively replicating a 3rd level spell "Stinking Cloud" in the form of a level 1 spell.

It is in fact better then Stinking Cloud as the area is much smaller (and therefore safer for allies) and enemies won't be able to get total concealment at all.

Not to mention its 2 round per level is DOUBLE the duration of Stinking Cloud.

Please seriously reconsider what you are asking for. How fair or fun will it be for your fellow players or the GM to have to face a lv 1 spell with the power of a lv 3 spell? More so given that lv 1 spells can be cast a lot more often?

PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 349 wrote:

Stinking Cloud

School conjuration (creation) [poison]; Level arcanist 3, bloodrager 3, magus 3, shaman 3, sorcerer/wizard 3, summoner (unchained) 3, witch 3

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a rotten egg or cabbage leaves)

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius, 20 ft. high
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; see text; Spell Resistance no

Stinking cloud creates a bank of fog like that created by fog cloud, except that the vapors are nauseating. Living creatures in the cloud become nauseated. This condition lasts as long as the creature is in the cloud and for 1d4+1 rounds after it leaves. (Roll separately for each nauseated character.) Any creature that succeeds on its save but remains in the cloud must continue to save each round on your turn. This is a poison effect.

Stinking cloud can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent stinking cloud dispersed by wind reforms in 10 minutes.

Lantern Lodge

There is always the classic Wizard's Magical Iron Tower appearing in the middle of a tunnel and the party have to find a way to get past it. Either by talking to a cranky wizard or fighting say wizard.

Duergar maintain trade tunnels with toils along the way. Maybe the news of their escape has spread and there is now a reward for them. They must find a way through without being caught.

Encountering a dragon in its lair. The party can stumble across a pile of treasure or magical items and end up looting the items. Maybe the dragon is a Crystal Dragon and the party mess up by touching its stuff, so now it wants something in return.

Lantern Lodge

I agree the spell access being just a small pool that is specific to each deity makes customization more limited.

Most of the issues I was freaking out about has been resolved in the 2 blog post. But Spells being tied to deity is kinda scaring me. Cos it could limit character customisation and make certain deities more attractive then others for certain builds in a bad way.

Lantern Lodge

Would it be possible for Deities to give multiple spell options at each level?

To avoid a deity becoming too 1 tracked and ending up being "that" deity that give so and so.

Like if deity starts giving a bunch of damage spells, then won't that shoehorn that deity as the go to deity for making an offensive caster cleric?

But if a deity have a selection of spells at each level, then Clerics can pick the spells they want to use to make them unique.

Lantern Lodge

gwynfrid wrote:

You can get as many as 3 domains (but you need to use 1 feat for each domain beyond the first).

Secane, did you check out the Cleric blog and the Domains blog? There's a ton of info there, showing that the PF2 cleric has a great many more options than his PF1 colleague.

I think I misses those.

I just read them and I think most of my fears are answered. Whew!

Sorry if I posted this thread in haste. I was told PF2.0 only gave 1 domain to clerics and after realizing what that means in 5ed, I kinda freak out!

Thanks for pointing me to the links!

Lantern Lodge

Atalius wrote:
I hear a lot about Wall of Thorns. What makes it so good?

Wall of Thorns is a very strong area denying spell.

1) It damages creatures trying to walk or attempting to walk through it.

2) It blocks line of sight, great for denying some spells

3) It has volume (it can be as thin as 5 feet thick) meaning it actually takes up squares and can be used to say fill up a hall way.

4) To get through it, creatures require a very high strength check. And depending on how thick the wall of thorns is, it may be almost impossible to get through. Plus even with the check, it can still deal damage.

5) It can be used to trap creatures. - Any creature within the area of the spell when it is cast takes damage as if it had moved into the wall and is caught inside. In order to escape, it must attempt to push its way free, or it can wait until the spell ends.

6) It is a plant wall, that is effectively impervious to most stuff, even magical fire takes quite some time to bring it down. - A wall of thorns can be breached by slow work with edged weapons. Chopping away at the wall creates a safe passage 1 foot deep for every 10 minutes of work. Normal fire cannot harm the barrier, but magical fire burns it away in 10 minutes.

Lantern Lodge

If space is an issue, get the Lean Frame feat for your animal companion. The feat removes the penalties for squeezing.

Effectively your large AC can squeeze into a medium size area and won't suffer all the nasty squeezing effects.

Lantern Lodge

This is just me putting down a point of concern in PF2.0 for a class that I dearly love to play.

I have been playing some D&D5ed and Starfinder Society games recently and it struck me that both of these games restrict the cleric/mystic class domains(Connections in SF) severely compared to PF1.0
This leads to a huge lack of diversity in character options for these classes in those games.

In PF1.0 the cleric is a very diverse class. No 2 cleric characters are exactly alike. Even if 2 clerics worship the same deity, they can have different domains, making each a unique character.
So while 2 clerics might have the same fire domain, their other domain can make them very different characters. One can be a buffer, the other a damage dealer, etc.

This is not the case in 5ed and to some extend SFS.

In 5ed, clerics only have 1 domain. While this makes character creation easy, it means there is effectively no difference between making a War Domain cleric of 1 deity vs another. They will end up largely the same. Its the same for being a light domain cleric of a deity of the sun is mechanical no difference from a deity of beauty that also gives the light domain. You end up with the same character/role.

This 1 domain restriction also means that the domain you pick WILL end up shoehorning you into a given a role. A Light domain cleric for example, will end up being seen as a caster cleric, cos that is what that domain is all about, same for a war domain being seen as a weapon user and so forth.

In SF, the 1 connection option for the Mystic, kinda leads to this same effect. In this case, the Mystic works kinda more like a Oracle in may ways. Still each Connection kinda restrict your role, not as much as 5ed's, but its still there.

I hope that the cleric in PF2.0 give us just as much options as in PF1.0.
Please make it great! And don't water it down for the sake of simplicity.

Lantern Lodge

In real life, Europeans is used for people from Europe, even if they are from different countries in Europe.

Given that people from Tian Xia are called Tians (even with the various subgroups.)

So what is the Common word for people from the inner sea?

Lantern Lodge

A straight up paladin is a great class with lots of staying power.

Get high Str, Con and Cha.
A dex build is possible, but not recommended due to the limited number of feats a Paladin get. Assuming you want to use feat slots to get other feats.

You don't need a archetype to make a Paladin work.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Given that the Pathfinders have a negative reputation for grave robbing, stealing and other actions (murderhobo), often seen with a negative light in the inner-sea region... has anyone make use of this "reputation" to intimidate NPCs during a scenario?

Like "Talk! Or you will see what Pathfinders can do to you, your home and the graves of your ancestors! When we are done, there won't even be a broken bowl left for you to beg with!"

Or do most players avoid this cos its too evil?

Lantern Lodge 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I ran We be Goblins recently at a local mix games event. It was GLORIOUS!

My players had a ton of fun being goblins And I pretty much lost my voice after doing goblin speech for 4 hrs.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

When PFS in my area first started, we have games constantly. Often ever day of the week. This made PFS very accessible for everyone and we have a large number of players.

One of the biggest issues we are facing now is that we can't run games all the time anymore. Older players can't replay scenarios, so they only sign up for newer scenarios. This also means that older players have a hard time playing with newer players and can't easily pass on their knowledge of the game.

Newer and older players do get to play together when new scenarios are ran, which means only about 1 game or so per week. Most GMs rarely run earlier seasons scenarios now. There often just isn't enough interest to do so.

I know replayability have been brought up before. If PFS is to stay competitive, it may seriously want to consider opening up scenarios to allow some level of replayability and get more people back on to PFS.

On a whole is not that my local PFS community want to be less active, but we simply can't be as active as before.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

In Singapore, we have a couple of regular PFS groups, each running PFS once every week, same for SFS.
We have some new players coming in, but there is an overall drop in PFS numbers over the years.

5ed D&D has really bloomed locally. They have like 3-5 game shop locations running games every week. Most on multiple days.
The local Adventure League is also quite well organised with chat groups in discord etc.
At a recent Con for AL, there is like 70+ over people at a time who turn up for AL. The total number is probably around 100++ total. About 5 times the number of PFS players.

There is a sort of distinction between the 2 groups tho. 5ed players are usually younger and up for short, quicker games, many times per week. While PFS players are usually a more mature crowd and able to game only once or twice a week.

Having tried both, there are pros an cons to both form of organized play.
I do hope Paizo come up with something to help us encourage more people to come play PFS.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congratulations Richard!!!

You have been a great VC for Singapore all this years! Congrats on finally getting your 5th Star!

Lantern Lodge 3/5

So what if the wearer was lied to by the dominator caster and keeps trying to save against the command to attack... but have a bad will save and keeps failing?

Lantern Lodge

Hi Bruno! Thanks for helping me make my grappler build way back.

Just checking, would it be possible to make this build using a wildshaped druid instead?
(Assuming the character gets the feat to up wildshape by 4 levels.)

1 to 50 of 2,155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>