Sevren's page

So the Aspis Consortium and Shadow Lodge dissidents are back for another round, you say? I might be able to mix up a cure for that...
*swirls around and stares intently at a flask which contains dangerous-looking liquids*
Ah, yes... fire is the perfect cure for either case of envy or dissension, heheheh.

Good, good. I just wanted to post here to be polite before just dropping an application in your forums. I guess my mind is still back in the time of companies (guilds) only recruiting for the purpose of end-game content, which is definitely a mentality that isn't needed for this purpose.

I believe there would be a system in place to prevent such abuse. Of course, my belief is that in such a huge job such as a bank robbery, this would HAVE TO be a TEAM effort. Of course, one rogue could open the vault and take the stuff inside; but he would need a distraction, say a bard, a mage to assist in suppression of magical security systems in place, and a very stout character that can carry the loot while still being able to run a good pace. They would also need a mobile healer that can keep them alive while they escape, as well one backup team to help deal with those trying to prevent their escape, as well as another backup team traveling close to the escapees to replace the roles of any possible fallen. This level of organization would require a PC thieves' guild all working together towards that similar goal.

TL;DR - Robbing an NPC bank should NEVER be a solo effort.

Wow, just, wow. Still 27 hours to go, and we've hit the fifth stretch goal. This is very, very impressive.

Immortal Conundrum is a nice alternative to the "smash in the door, steal the loot" approach some scenarios have. I think you would still do fine in it; the role-play doesn't all have to be done by one player... that is why there is the rest of the party. I do think the final combat seems anti-climatic and flat after the first half though.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I like to acknowledge my weaknesses as well as my strengths. Of course, I plan to shore up that specific weakness, it's just a matter of not letting my nerves get in the way of having fun.

I fold them into paper airplanes, and throw them at annoying players.
I jest, of course. I try to apply them to a character the moment I get them. The issue is deciding which of my nine characters to apply it to, unless it's a higher level chronicle.

Is recruitment still open for this company? I believe PFO may be the "holy grail" of MMOs I've been searching for, and the character I've decided on starting with fits with this company much more than any of the others I've seen. He's a bookish, dwarven Pathfinder scribe, sent to the River Kingdoms to study and chronicle the area, as well as help facilitate the creation of a lodge for his uncle, a high-ranking Society field agent. Back-story aside, I was wondering if you were still accepting applicants for this excellent organization.

Player-friendly ways to implement thievery would be a daunting task indeed, and I don't envy GW in that regard. Of course, if I were to do it, I'd place either a definitive material cost or time cost on protecting valuables from prospective thieves. Do you want to store your items in a ultra-safe, guaranteed protection NPC bank? Go for it, but it will cost you a percentage of coin based on the stored items in that bank, on a regular basis. Want to build one of those ultra-safe vaults for your adventuring company? It'll take a concerted effort of gathering materiel and actual hand-labor to create one. But it doesn't stop there - there would be an upkeep cost, based on the amount of wealth stored in the vault. Of course, to make it worth time and money spent in creation, this upkeep would only be between a third amd a half of the percentage an NPC bank would charge you regularly. Of course, varying layers of protecting would also be available, such as magic locks, posted guards, or deadly traps; the idea being how far you'd be willing to go to keep your valuables out of hands of the unscrupulous. The point of this is, if you want to lock an opposing player out of a possible game-play option, then you should be willing to expend the resources necessary to counteract the fact that THAT player is losing out on an element of game-play which may be most entertaining to him. Naturally, the costs associated with item protection would allow for an organized crime element to rise. If a player with very important valuables wanted his items protected from potential crooks, he could pay the most notorious crime ring a "protection" fee, which would be a form of contract with a guarantee that none of their agents would steal from the client, as well as a promise that any independent thieves who wanted to try such things would "sleep with the fishes". This is just one of the neat scenarios which could possibly arise from this form of item security.

A lot of the reason rampant, dishonorable PvP went on unchecked in previous MMOs was because there was virtually no in-game penalty for doing so. With PFO and the introduction of the alignment system, when you go on a rampant ganking spree, lawful and good organizations, whether player-run or NPC-controlled, will take notice (in some form or another) and take steps to make your life difficult, at least while in the territories controlled by those organizations.

The punishment for failing a noncombat portion of the dungeon should be similar in scope to failing a combat portion.

Well, trap-based punishments can be harsh if a party fails to complete a noncombat portion, such as spikes falling from the ceiling, lava flowing into the room, etc. Yet I foresee that the most common form of implementing this will be the increase of difficulty in subsequent combat encounters. For example, if you fail a puzzle, it could cause the mummies in the next room to awaken and join their fellow undead in their crypt. Or, if you bust down a door, it could alert the cultists inside to an intrusion and have them call a demon to their help protect their hidden shrine. So on and so forth.

I am still deeply concerned about my PFS games being ruined by 'Vagabond Child' and I want action, conswarnit! Surely this flood of mage escape artistry and archaeologist device disabling has gone on long enough!

** spoiler omitted **

Yes, and those fighters that are taking the Reactionary trait and going before my rogue are totally unacceptable! If they want to go before me, they should have to take the Improved Initiative feat! It's not like they don't have the feats for it! Gosh.

What do people think about a potential PFS scenario where the 'kick in the door/my build pwnz all!!!' approach leads to total party failure of the mission? A scenario where combat leads to failure and careful roleplay/GM interaction leads to success?

Every time a PFS judge gets a table full of min/maxing combat apes, they can crack out the module called 'The Art of Conversation' and laugh at the roleplaying ineptitude of today's Diablo 3 players.

I haven't played it yet, but I heard that "The Immortal Conundrum", a Season 3 5-9, is a lot like that. Of course, being the shy gamer that only likes to roll dice, I would probably fail miserably at it. But it wouldn't be for the lack of trying.

Hurrah for fringe corner-cases! At any rate, as a GM, I would be perfectly okay with a synthesist summoner with his shell and his animal companion at one of my PFS tables, since there's only two in-combat subjects at once for that particular player. This is one of those times where rules as intended defeat rules as written. Common sense still applies in PFS, at least according to Mr. Brock.

I definitively agree with most of this thread. Really raunchy content such as sexual violence and excessive gore would only bring less mature players, who would play it only for that content. As much as I hate to admit it, World of Warcraft got it right as far as this subject goes: no excessive gore, no overt sexual themes, and an optional language filter for those whose ears (eyes?) are hurt by profanity.

Magic and technology draw a staggering parallel when it comes to warfare. Assuming the two sides have the same tactical prowess, it would simply boil down to who has the best magic, or the most advanced technology. Typically this isn't the case, so both factors must be considered when comparing two armies in any conflict.

Despite this, magic is a much more significant abstract in the case of warfare than technology is. Fighting a bunch of berserkers who rely on their extraordinary rage ability to cause as much destruction as possible? There's a calming spell which makes enemies forfeit their emotion-based bonuses. Having a difficulty with well-fortified archers shooting your men before they can reach the gate? There's a spell that grants resistance to ranged weaponry, as well as a spell that can make ranged combat completely ineffective. Enemies taking advantage of flat terrain to use mounted cavalry tactics? The ground can be easily altered with a spell to prevent these tactics from being very effective. The point is, for every possible tactical situation, there's a magical effect which can either counter it outright or at least reduce its effectiveness. The key to this though is preparedness. If you know what to expect from your enemy, you can prepare spells for their approach. This is possible either through expert reconnaissance, or by the proper divination spells. The result of this is if you try to commit to warfare without at least as much magical access as your opponent, then the chances of victory decease based on the difference between the magic your side has access to and the magic the enemy has access to. Of course, this isn't considering that you can prepare your spell casters to specifically counter magic threats; although doing so lowers the amount of possible magic they can utilize in support of your own tactics.

Hay people, what's the problem here?

the question was... "Is magical knack allowed yet?"

the answer is... "No."

now all the, ah, discussion about "WHY" or "WHY NOT"?
this has been hashed out several times.
"No reason given to the public" - basicly, it boils down to "cause the DM said so".
I'm not happy with that answer. But I'm not getting stuck on it. the final athurity said so, so that's the way it is. The only other response would be:
"Sir, I would respectfully request you to re-consider this ruling. Please."
there... that work for you?
(who am I kidding. No one posting here is going to be effected by my post. lol!)

As much as I'd like to confirm or deny my suspicions, it would seem that the discussion of a single trait for Organized Play legality is on the bottom of the list of priorities for the upper management. I can't really hold that against them, between finishing up Season 3 and beginning work on Season 4, and all the conventions (and related preparations) that come with it. Despite this, it is my hope that they will discuss this when they start planning for the next release of the organized play guide, and when they do, share their reasoning for either the continued ban on this trait or for why they chose to allow it. We can discuss this in circles and circles, but unless they choose to disclose their reasoning, we're stuck on mere conjecture.

So it would be ok if we allowed it to be picked only by taking "Additional traits" feat at 3rd level?

I wouldn't see why not. Though the idea of the "Additional Traits" feat kind of irks me flavor-wise, as long as there's proper justification (such as suddenly finding out that your great-grandfather was a powerful mage) I could see it working. That, of course, is my home-game opinion and it really doesn't hold any water in PFS Organized Play.

As far as I'm concerned, when discussing whether a trait is over-powered or not, one has to compare it to other traits. In my opinion, +2 caster levels far outweighs the benefits of any other trait. This is how I came to the opinion that it is "over-powered".

I'm afraid I must disagree. You don't even get a benefit from this trait until you're 2nd level, and even then, you only get half its possible benefit until you hit third level, provided you are classing correctly. Now compared to something like +2 to initiative (granted by the Reactionary trait, very popular in my area) or +1 to saving throws against spells, spell-like abilities, and poisons (which is a dwarf regional that can be taken by any player via Adopted), both of which grant solid bonuses which help you throughout your career, Magical Knack is roughly on par, and only really kicks in when you're a 3rd level character with one level of a casting class, and two more levels of something else. And keep in mind that it doesn't grant more spells, just increase the effectiveness of current spells of which you can cast. The only way I can see this being overpowered is if somebody rolls a magus/fighter or magus/rogue, pairing either bonus feats and a decent BaB or sneak attack damage with a shocking grasp/corrosive touch spellstrike. Even then, magi get a very small number of spells per day at any given level, and very slow progression in their spell accessibility, which would be even further crippled by multi-classing.

Another good approach is to go brawler fighter(Ultimate Combat), dual-wielding a heavy spiked shield and spiked armor. Both start at a d6, and the spiked armor is light. By doing that, as well as taking Defender of the Society (+1 AC when in medium/heavy armor, from Faction Guide), you can build an effective AC tank while not having to sacrifice damage output.

How about this:
Double Agent: You may have an evil-aligned character as one of your Pathfinder Society characters. As you are trying to inflitrate the Pathfinder Society on behalf of an evil organization, you must still act like a neutral or good-aligned character.
This could open up antipaladins and evil-only PrCs, like Red Mantis Assassins, which I'm sure a lot of PFS players want to play.