Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber. Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 19 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 38 Organized Play characters.
Though I still think on top of that they should still count as level+1 for treasure bundles when playing up to signify increased pay for increased difficulty. That way the player now has the elite adjustment or level bump plus a lil extra money to smooth out a possible hard game.
"Play up for more rewards" was super toxic in PF1 and resulted in people being pressured into playing tables they were not comfortable at and then getting their characters killed.
I would really rather we not go back to that.
I am guessing the tables you and I have seen have been very different and this is very possible. Had I seen what you described I might have a different outlook at the situation. For me though in PF1 I never seen anyone forced or pressured into playing up they always made the choice themselves. I can honestly say that the players I saw chose to play up and were grateful for the extra pay that came with the extra risk. If that was truly happening then that is awful and should not happen.
What I don't want to see is what is currently happening, that I have been seeing, which is villainizing a player for choosing (and in some cases not having a choice) bringing a high/low level character to the table. I have in PF2 seen people go, "Well there is the level 4. What as a$$" and on the reverse I have seen level 1s be shamed for not helping and making passing the victory point system (as one example) harder on the team due to the seat being full adding more points needed to succeed.
That is why when I hear people saying things like, well people will just private their table so the person can't play or people will just leave and close the table it is villainizing a player. The system should not be villainizing a player on a decision oh who they want to play and I for one never saw in PF1 a high/low level player sitting at the table ever be treated like they personally ruined a table because of their character choice. But what I can say is I have seen it happen at PF2 tables and that is what I want to help come up with a way to stop.
As I understand the level bump concept, you don't actually get extra levels, you just get an effective bonus on all of your rolls
Guide to Organized Play wrote:
Mentorship and PC Level Bumps
To provide low level players a more fun and fair experience, PCs whose level equals the adventure’s base level (such as a 3rd-level PC playing in a Level 3–6 scenario) gain a temporary boost when playing in the higher level range called a level bump to represent the higher-level PCs’ mentorship and support.
Increase every DC the PC has by 1.
Increase the attack modifiers, attack damage, spell damage, saving throw modifiers, skill modifiers, Perception modifiers, and AC of the PC by 1.
Increase the Hit Point totals of the PC by 10 or by 10%, whichever is higher.
These adjustments are less beneficial than gaining a level, yet they provide the PC more survivability and opportunity to contribute to the adventure experience, reducing the degree to which higher-level PCs might overshadow these less experienced Pathfinders.
Maybe that is a step that can help smooth out the situation of having to play up. Just have the guide book changed to add that the lowest level for the scenario during a play up situation gets the elite adjustment placed on them. This would give a bit more strength and resilience then the current level bump system gives (still not as strong as a real character +2 levels) but less held behind then just the bump. Then leave the current level bump system for those one level out of tier. That way both the lowest level and 2nd lowest level of a module get a helping hand to deal with playing up.
Though I still think on top of that they should still count as level+1 for treasure bundles when playing up to signify increased pay for increased difficulty. That way the player now has the elite adjustment or level bump plus a lil extra money to smooth out a possible hard game.
If a table of say 1-1-2-2-2 got a last minute four show up that would push them into high tier, they could simply ask that player, for the sake of everyone's enjoyment to select a different character, select a pregen, or choose something else to do.
TwilightKnight wrote:
In an extreme case, I've even seen a public table suddenly become a private one in order to deny a particular player a vacant seat. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but its as reasonable a response to the situation as the player insisting they play a character that forces people at the table to be uncomfortable and they just have to accept it.
So you are agreeing that lower levels being forced to play up is not going to be enjoyable and make players feel uncomfortable?
When the system creates a force up that makes the game not "enjoyable" or cause players to feel "uncomfortable" you don't look at the player putting down the level 1 or the level 4 as the problem. We never look at players choosing to play a specific character in PF1 a problem but now in PF2 we are? That sounds more like a system problem not a player problem to me that needs to be addressed.
If the authors are following the rules given to them and players are pushed up in their modules thus leading to the game feeling not "enjoyable" or players becoming "uncomfortable" we didn't blame the authors for the issue as they followed the rules given to them. This once again sounds more like a system problem not an author problem that needs to be addressed.
This whole thread has been about how being pushed up, especially at the lower level, is not fun. That the current system is the issue and needs to be evaluated.
This could be a CR issue or it could be a total system issue as two examples. I offered looking at CR as this might be the easier of the possible fixes then attempting a whole system revamp.
As a side note... I do not know a single "new player" that wants to be referred to, called or even labeled as a nOOb. Maybe just call them what they are which is a new player. You too were a new player. I am sure since you are here your first table/gm/fellow players were kind to you, took you under their wing and helped gain and enjoy a love for this hobby. I ask to maybe not use a term for the next generation of players that the whole of the entire gaming community uses as a derogatory term for new players.
Players and GMs need to watch and manage the level mix. Don't bring a level 1 into a party of lvl 4s. The bump to the level 1 will not always be enough. Don't bring a lvl 4 into a party of lvl 1s. The level 4 might not have any trouble with increased difficulty, but it could crush the level 1s.
The problem with this statement is that at all society tables that have legal player show up and drops a legal character down the table cannot turn them away unless the table is full. (Even then I have in the past split the table into two and asked a friend to be the second DM) Have a table of 1s and 2s and someone shows up with a 4. Sure I can encourage them to to make a new character but in the end the player makes the decision and if they decide to drop the level 4 the table is forced up and so now everyone at the table gets punished...
Lets go the other way... You are running a table of 4s and a new player shows up with their level one. I would say the level bump does not help at all tbh from my experience. They still drop as fast and still fail as often as if they didn't have it because of how the math swings. So now that new player gets smashed in the face, doesn't have a good time and we lose a new member of society play.
PF1 playing up was not nearly as detrimental as it is in PF2. How tight they tuned the math makes even the smallest level difference crazy. This compounds the CR system and why it needs to be reevaluated completely. For fun lets set off 2 parties of equal CR and see that happens.
3v1 equal challenge rating characters:
Party 1
Level 4 Barbarian(1)
To hit
18 Str(4)+LvL(4)+Prof(2)+Potency(1)=11
Damage
1d12+Striking(1d12)+Strength(4)+Rage(2)=2d12+6
Armor Class
Base AC with stat/item (5)+lvl(4)+Prof(2)-Rage(1)=20
Hit Points
Ancestries(8)+16 Con(3X4=12)+Level(12X4=48)=68 plus 7 Temp HP
Initiative
Wis(0)+Expert(4)+Level(4)=+8 to initiative
Party 2
Level 1 Barbarian (3)
To hit
18 Str(4)+LvL(1)+Prof(2)=7
Damage
1d12+Strength(4)+Rage(2)=1d12+6
Armor Class
Base AC with stat/item (5)+lvl(1)+Prof(2)-Rage(1)=17
Hit Points
Ancestries(8)+16 Con(3)+Level(12)=23 plus 4 Temp HP
Initiative
Wis(0)+Expert(4)+Level(1)=+5 to initiative
Now let's play the 10.5 game where all rolls are 10.5 since that's the average. So let's call it 11 because the dice are hot.
4th level Barbarian will always hit his first attack.
1st level Barbarian will never hit at all (even with a flank ignoring barbarian 4 can't be flanked)
You are right, it is unfair of me to not give those poor level 1 barbarians a level bump of +1 for being level 1 playing up.
So my level 4 barbarian is still at 10.5 and the level 1s are 11.5. So let's call is 11/12 respectively rounding up because luck is on their side.
4th level Barbarian will always hit his first attack.
1st level Barbarian will never hit at all (even with a flank ignoring barbarian 4 can't be flanked)
So the level 4 smears the floor of the 3 level 1s and walks away.
I bring up the above to show that in the 1,1,2,2,2,4 or even anytime 3,3,4,4,4,7 or 5,5,6,6,6,9 or 7,7,8,8,8,11 the system is asking the 5 lower level players to stand against a foe that will easily destroy them. And for no added benefit or gain.
As I said in my first post if I am at a table and someone drops their level 4 and forces a table up (and sadly this happens way way way too often) should the table GM start denying a player from joining? Or if a level 1 new player show up to a table of level 4s should we deny them from playing? I mean both of those are a slippery slope and why this discussion needed to be handled during the beta but seemed to be largely ignored that the CR increase is much much worse now in this system.
If the system made it just harder I feel the system would be okay but in a world where you are in constant fear of rolling a crit fail and that the higher the DC the greater the chance of a crit fail is why players playing up refuse to participate because I don't want to be any more of an additional burden. If the system had no crit failing then at least then people would not worry and just role the die incase of the lucky 20... but when you have only 5% chance of a miracle against the possible 20% or more chance of a critical fail causing lose of victory points/increase failure/etc... it leads to what I when I am forced to play up, and I assume a lot of people playing up do... sit at a table and do nothing... and that's not fun.
My only solution I can offer is if the module was written with a if/then statement. Basically if character is lower 2 levels use these numbers for the creature/encounter/event/etc for purpose of DC/AC/Damage/to hit and if character is upper 2 levels use these number for purpose of DC/AC/Damage/to hit. Unfortunately that would require a lot more juggling for gms so I am sure it would be shot down but that's all I have been able to come up with.
Asking another potentially disruptive question, why use massive damage at all in org play? I do recall it being ignored in 1e, so why not continue to do so?
It happens so rarely, its not hard to "forget" to enforce it
So just because you "forget" to enforce it does not mean every gm "forgets" it. So the obvious answer is to remove the rule if the only way to deal with it is to "forget" it.
TwilightKnight wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
GMs are NOT allowed to alter DCs. I'm pretty sure that remains a constant.
Meh—GMs have always been empowered to add circumstance bonus/penalties that amount to the same thing as adjusting the DC. Not to mention the fairly liberal language in the Aid action to can allow allies to have a big impact on skill checks.
That is the issue we are all talking about. If you need to add a adjustment to DCs/ACs etc to make it more fair then it is not an appropriate number to be against. If for no other reasons than not every gm will make the adjustments you are leading to tables feeling like the whole mission is a lost cause. So if the answer is just apply an adjustment then the number in flat should be lower to begin with.
The modules should be written thinking not only this might be the first time someone is a player but also this might be someone's first time GMing. A GM following RAW and MAW could easily have a bad time since they might not think/know to do what you suggest and thus the community could lose both new players and/or GMs.
I figure I will throw my hat into this as both a player and as a GM. There has been and continues to be glaring issues that have been going on since the system was released.
I was there before season 6 when people on the forums complained that min maxers were destroying modules and that they were too easy.
I was there during season 6 of PF1 when the designers decided to follow the, “The bad guys have been watching societies tricks and are turning it against them”
I was there when scores of players called out that this had become unfun as this new stance severely hurt the average player.
I was there when John Compton spoke out and stated that the design team understood that tuning modules against min maxers only hurts the majority of the player base that are not, and promised to keep a closer eye on low level scenario difficulty.
I was there in the beginning of PF2 trying to convince my players, my friends that the system is solid and would just need some time and a few books to give extra resources and tuning to make it feel better.
I was there when season after season it felt like the difficulty curve just continued to go up and started to make task impossible.
I was there when a level 1 forced to play up did not succeed a single roll an entire session and was knocked out the first round of every combat even with the level bump.
I was there when that same player asked, “Wait if my character took all these risks why am I still getting the same reward?
And now we get to today...
Having your strongest stat/skill player only having a 40% or less chance of succeeding is not fun.
Having monsters that are able to remove player agency with similar saves DCs is not fun.
Watching a player slowly burn/bleed/freeze to death after an encounter from persistent damage despite all the help the team gives is not fun.
I feel forced to apologize to tables as a whole combat round passes by having the only hit that occurred by one hero just because it was a crit. This was for no other reason then the monster had an AC of 22 and the best plus to hit at the table was 8 with everyone much less.
Looking at modules that turns me, a GM who likes to give a great story, into almost the foe of the table by the above listed issues at the end.
I could sit and list everything that I see as glaring issues but this wall is already getting too long. Sadly most of this is an easy fix. And I come from a world where if you see a problem you need to develop solutions. So here are my solutions.
My possible solutions:
First: DCs/ACs of a monster/effects/trap/saves/gather info/haunts/etc... should be at least 50% to the average stated hero. (Average hero I would place as trained and with +1or +2 to the stat) A person who is speced/stated for the situation should be closer to 70%. This will allow everyone a chance to succeed while also allowing people who focus shine. The current state of the system has the strongest stated being at 40 percent and GMs looking at the rest of the table going, “Well you can at least try to crit to succeed.” In a world where crit failing could lead to dire consequences it doesn’t feel good to be in that situation watching one party member failing despite being spec/stated/trained for it while the rest stand by and do nothing in fear of crit failing. With the bar set closer to 50% for an average hero that would put the crit fail at closer to 5-10%. So an untrained person just rolling stats would end up at your current 35~40% with an 15~20% crit fail, your average stat a ~50% with a ~5-10% crit fail and your stated players at 70% with a flat 5% chance of failing. Now heroes who are average in a skill will not be too afraid to try while also giving a boon to your heroes who put extra effort in a particular field.
Second: Post combat all persistent damaging effects (bleed/acid/cold/fire/etc) should end without additional flat checks. The reasoning behind this is a person on fire, bleeding, covered in acid, freezing and surrounded by their teammates dousing them in water/bandages/blankets should be enough to auto succeed. There are no monsters and no immediate threats so it should just end. Slowly burning an unlucky hero to death is not the heroic ending you want to give players. That is not an honorable death and should never happen.
Third:
It is too easy for players to be forced to play up in the current CR system. For example in no world will a 1,1,2,2,2,4 level party (19 CR points) work well playing up. Even with the bump to the level 1s that turns them into not quite level 2’s. So what do these low level people get for all their efforts? Well let see nothing… Well, no that is not fair. They get to experience loss in rep as they generally will not complete the second condition, they get to make less gold as they now have an increased chance to lost/missed treasure bundles and oh yes a greater chance of not being able to do anything successfully for 4 to 5 hours because as outlined above with the current state of DCs/ACs they drop even further lower in success with more increased chance of crit fail. My solution is simple by doing one or all of the following suggested. A. Hero’s forced to play up get auto treasure bundle protection (IE max bundles for the mission) and bundles earned equaling level+1. This is to signify Society's acknowledgment of placing the hero/agent on a more deadly complicated mission than his peers of equal level. B An increased ACP gain to help offset the increased chance of character death and returning. C If the fear of B is people abusing the system for free ACP then give a free resurrection to the heros playing up as a thanks from Society for being placed in that difficult situation.
Tl;dr I have and remain a fan of Pathfinder. It is just becoming too much to defend now and adjustments need to be made sooner than later. This is the call to actions to fix the game/society/module play. As a GM who wants to tell a tale to my player I shouldn’t end feeling like the villain because of a system and design choices.
Hey there and welcome! Hope this is finding you well! Any games that want to start up in the ol' state is more then welcome. As Medtech stated a lot if not all locations in NJ have closed down due to the pandemic and I have been talking to the older ones we used to frequent to attempt to a possible re-start up phase again.
As for Saga Concepts I also have not been there before. Are you in contact with the owner already to bring gaming to their store? If so I would love to help you in whatever way I can. Let me know what I can do to help. If you would rather contact more directly feel free to hit me up at my email I'll give bellow.
@Jeremiah... Well the easiest way I have learned to get players to learn the rules is to make an exciting story line that drives them to want to learn a system more.
For instance I made a "anti magic" campaign that made players explore how to survive in a world with limited magic and no casters.
Another one I came up with was a gestalt campaign. (If you don't know what it is basically it is you level two classes at the same time and that all the bonuses and minuses of both) A strange power struck the area causing unusual powers in people to appear and your band is trying to understand while trying to protect the population from the overpowered minions that also obtained these powers. Lots of moving parts that make players think and learn them all to be effective
I would say, "Hey guys what kind of story do you want?" or well you have been playing together for 4/5 years so you should have an idea of what they like. Use that throw in a twist and make it exciting so they want to learn.
I hope these ideas help. Sadly you will always have the, "What do I roll" player but even those players with the right character sheet can do well.
Yeah they FAQed that AOO can be turned into Trips, Sunder, Disarm. They also FAQed that Vicious stomp and greater trip both pop the AOOs.
I can understand about the hardness that makes sense because of the whole DR=/=Hardness FAQ because of the whole year of the sky key robot hardness questions.
Though I do question the pummeling style if the AOOs were used as just damage instead of sunder if they should stack as one attack just because of the one line , "...total the damage from all hits before applying damage reduction."
I just would seem that the AOOs grated from greater trip and vicious stomp would still be group in the damage pool before DR is applied.
So I figure I will not beat around the bush on this and go straight to the meat and potatoes.
Tonight at my PFS game I had a level 9 (Fighter 1 Unchained Monk 8) playing at the table. The parts of the build that matter are as follows:
Improved Trip/Greater Trip/Vicious Stomp
Leg Sweep
Improved Sunder/Greater Sunder
Pummeling Style
Combat Reflexes
The long and short was he would wade into combat against 2 opponents. (In example I double charged with two NPCs toward him since he was out in the open compared to the group.)
He would start with his flurry call the first strike as a leg sweep that he connects with and then follows up with the free trip.
The trip succeeds to which he then follows it up with two AOOs (one from greater trip and one from vicious stomp) I know all of this is legal so far from other FAQs
The two AOOs he then said he converted to Sunders against the weapon. (Still know this is acceptable from other FAQs)
The question comes at this point when he said that pummeling style would combine the two AOOs damage before applying the hardness.
He then with his second attack on the flurry converted the second attack to a trip attempt and did the double AOO Sunder vs the second enemies weapon (Once again using pummeling to combine before hardness)
My question is does it really work this way. From what I can tell it might as it says total the damage from all the hits before applying the reduction. I just figured I would see what you guys think.
First I am sorry for posting this here. For some reason I was unable to post this to the actual play test forums so if a mod could move this over there it would be appreciated. Thank you in advance and sorry for giving you work.
Before I get to the play test aspect just a few notes and statements I want to give. Feel free to scroll past if you wish not to read it.
GenCon, like always, it was an amazing time. If you have not had the chance to go I highly encourage you do so as sitting with 1000+ PFS members is an amazing feeling.
To Mike Brock. Thank you for your years of hard work and service to our community. No plaque alone given to you at GenCon can say thank you enough for the amount of hours of hard work you have put into to help make this a great society and guild of gamers. Good luck in wherever you go in the future. Always know you have a path back and you will always be welcomed by the players of PFS.
To my table GM and the Author of Under the Ice - Thank you so much for making this game an amazing experience. I was luckily able to sit at the author of the mods table where he created an amazing 3D Map to go with the mission. It was truly amazing and I was glad I was able to experience this. He was both a great GM as well produced a very well written mod. I am looking forward to the next one that he puts out.
Onto the play test part of this post. (The main reason for this post)
My build.
Vigilante 3 - Warlock Specialization
Stats - 10 Str / 16 Dex / Con 14 / Int 14 / Wis 10/ Cha 14
Race - Human (Have to pay your taxes)
Faction - Sovereign Court (Not supposed to talk about this lol)
Traits - Contract Master (Because I too think the social side should be able to pick up languages to speak to other nations and people)
Influential (Because who couldn't use more diplomacy)
Feats - Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Two Weapon Fighting (Told you I had to pay my taxes)
Weapon - Long Bow (Nothing special here just a bow)
Armor - Four Mirror Armor (Went more exotic to increase the look between my characters for story reasons and thematic reasons)
Social Grace - Diplomacy (See above about diplomacy)
Vigilante Spec (Warlock)
Arcane Training 1
Warlock Talent - Arcane Strike
Skills of importance - (AKA what I put points in)
Bluff +9 - Diplomacy +15/+11 - Disguise +28/+8 - Intimidate +8 - Knowledge Local +8 - Linguistics +9 - Perception +8 - Sense Motive +6 - Spellcraft +8 - UMD +8
Only spells used in mod to note - Infernal Healing, Thunder Stomp and detect magic.
And now onto the greater details about the adventure
Spoiler:
First and for most about 3/4 of the mission was a RP heavy game. This was because the aspect of my handler (AKA the social side) was able to shine with the diplomacy to help win over the NPCs I came across.
At one point things got a little dicey and I was able to intimidate as my vigilante to avoid a fight. Because of this we were able to continue on with our mission to find the sky key with no combat having occurred. This very aspect was amazing as it allowed me to play stern and gruff as the vigilante and more calm and relaxed when I was playing the handler.
Eventually we made it to the dungeon/abandoned fort where the first combat occurred. I attempted Thunderstomp X1 and was unsuccessful but was able to hit 1 out of 2 times in the following rounds with my bow. After the three rounds the group was successful in bringing down the beast trying to stop us from entering and wanted to take the daughter of Vliyora from us.
The rest of the dungeon went pretty smooth until the last encounter. Once again I attempted Thunderstomp X1 and was not successful. Once again I was 1 out of 2 times able to tag the dwarf with arrows. Sadly we almost lost the daughter due to his special attack that allowed him to run past the party and basically strangle the life out of her. Infernal healing, as well as other party healing, was used to get her off the ground and keep her alive.
Finally we were met outside by guards sent by Vliayara and to punish/kill those that took her daughter with them. Insert diplomancing our way out of the fight with the guards.
We returned back empty handed but with a new direction to the sky key that we were sent to seek out and obtain. (AKA leading into the next part of the story and adventure)
Finally I had a chance before leaving to speak with Vliayara and talk to her about the Sovereign Court. We spoke for a bit where I was able to use diplomacy to recruit her to cooperate with the faction. (Great success. Marked that off on the faction card.)
All in all I found this mod to go very well because I was built to handle diplomacy but can see how the pain and problems can be much harder if the group did not have a face for the group or have built to diplomacy as I did.
Closing thought:
My friend and I have been talking about this class since the play test started. I see the potential in it to allow great amounts of RP using the two faces but know that in some PFS play (as well with home brews and APs) that you might not be able to enjoy that luxury thus taking away one solid aspect of the character.
As for the warlock from what I can see it definitely needs a bit of tuning. From what I can see most of the testers, as well as myself, are not going into the casting aspect because of the tax involved to gain full vigilante casting (which is a weaker form of other classes that are slow progression healers). If someone is going to take that level of tax to go full warlock casting they feel like, why not just play caster X where I can be a better caster?
I am a firm believer that if you are going to point out an issue that you should provide some kind of idea or solution to fix the problem. If the Arcane training was brought from 6 talents to 3 each giving 2 spell levels (1-2 3-4 5-6) this would lower the tax significantly and at least make it a more attractive option.
I also like that you have created an armored casting talent but also see this as a tax that needs to be altered and fine tuned. My suggestion would be to add to Arcane Training 1 the ability to cast in light armor without spell casting issues (to bring in line with other similar caster) but change the arcane armor casting talent to then be to be able to cast without issues in medium armor. This again will lower the tax that a pure caster would feel and possibly make up not being as strong of a caster as other similar casters. This will also allow those that want to be more defensive have to shell out a talent while those who don’t, or want to risk failure, can gain more versatility.
I think the spells per day should be removed from the arcane casting talent and just made static for all versions of warlock while only pure casters would get the higher level of spells. In all I think the above 3 changes should occur to both the Warlock and the Zealot (Minus the armor casting as divine casters do not have the problems casting that arcane ones do) As both Zealot and Warlock share the same issues with casting being very unattractive and very taxing.
Finally I think a suggestion I would give to the class would be to allow cross specialization. Much like Keneticist has the ability to access other elements or further specialize in their chosen element I think this could be an interesting aspect to be added to the class. The second specialization with a delay to skills much like built in keneticist that way the end talents can only be accessed by those of the primary specialization.
The biggest complaint I have read has been that the class fails to fill a niche aspect that other classes can do better. If the above suggestion is added the niche would be to be able to build your character to your characters story of how your character gets the job done. I understand this could lead to possible abuse but as long as the secondary aspect/specialization has a level delay to abilities much like keneticist has this might delay abuse while leading to more creativity available the player.
That is it for now for me. I have three more play test I want to post but I will delay until the forums goes back up. I am looking forward to more testing when I get home from GenCon. Feel free to ask any questions or comments and I will respond as quickly as I can.
It is not a spoiler though... You are not allowed to be evil. The caveat to that is that you can have a dark side... IE necromancy, cause harm spell etc etc... It is about how the spell is used that determine if it is an evil act.
For instance... If I use the spell Interrogate (Evil descriptor spell) to pull the information from someone to save the country or the pathfinder society that is far from an evil act.
Another example would be a cleric casting cure moderate wounds (good descriptor spell) and channel positive energy to heal members of group that is murdering, raping and destroying the country side does not make him good because he is casting good aligned spells.
The point is it is the actions of the player/npc that determines if the character is evil not just the parts that build the character.
All I was saying in my post was to get the same fluff for your character and with less of the drama that you can see coming up this post, as well as others, its better off to go with Prof Mercenary or something to the same effect.
Here you go
The Michael Brock post explaining that.
My question to the OP would be why not just take Prof. Mercenary? I mean you still get to do all the murder hobo things you want without the icky side effects or feels by saying, "I am an assassin for pay". This would also alleviate possibilities of GMs not agreeing with that choice or judging you hard for choosing it.
That way you know, and can write up a little blurb in your character description, that you can and are willing to take a life for pay but with the caveat that it is just not out of indiscriminate want and destruction.
It is the actions that make you and turn you to evil not the sheer fact that it is evil. Just something things are more easily able and willing to lead you to that dark side then others.
Anytime Mark I am glad to be of service to the society and your designers. Hope it was helpful if there is anything I am lacking that you need for pure data or anything else let me know and I will include it in my next report.
My build
Str 8
Dex 16
Con 18
Int 14
Wis 12
Cha 7
Level 2 Kineticist
Race Human
Skills (Rank) - Knowledge (Eng) 2 Perception 2 Sleight of Hand 2 Stealth 2 UMD 2
Traits Armor Expert/Pragmatic Activator
Feats - Point Blank Shot / Precise Shot
Wild Talents - Extended Range / Light Touch
Blast -
Telekinetic Blast - Attack +4/+5 if in 30 (+1 from BAB +3 from Dex)
--------------------- Damage 1d6+5/1d6+6 if in 30 (1d6+1+Con)
Armor - Leather Lammar / AC 17 / 4 from armor 3 from dex
Saving Throws 7/6/1
HP total 23 (During game 21 due to 1pt burn for Force Ward gaining 3 temp HP)
The Party
Level 2 Kitsune Sorcer Enchantment focus
Level 2 Bard focus performance Short Bow
Level 1 Shaman Melee/Tank focus 2 Hand Great Sword
Tier 1-2
Encounter information:
Total # of encounter - 5
Encounter 1
Lasted 3 rounds
Consisted of 3 Dogs
- Round 1 Double move to get line of sight no attack
- Round 2 Missed - Rolled 8 - 12 total to hit
- - During round attacked by dog. Took 5 Damage (3 Absorbed by force ward 2 went through)
- Round 3 Hit - Rolled 11 - 16 total to hit / Rolled 6 did total 12 damage (Max damage)
Trap triggered
- Took 8 points of damage (3 absorbed by force ward 5 went through)
- UMD used - CLW Wand - 7 (Rolled 6 on 1d8+1)
- Full HP restored minus burn
Encounter 2
Lasted 3 rounds
Consisted of 1 Zombie Ogre
- Round 1 Dropped Bard in one hit (in negatives) then moved into my face
- - Withdrew took AoO due to character reach Took 15 points of damage (3 Absorbed by shield 12 went through)
- - HP left 9
- - Sorcer Magic Missile for 4
- - Shaman Total Defense
- Round 2 Move action to pull wand of CLW Standard to blast
- - Hit with 15 (rolled 14 +5 -4 from soft cover) Told AC was 10 due to squeeze and size
- - Damage Rolled 2 did 8 damage (2 on 1d8+1+4+1)
- - Sorcer Magic Missile for 5
- - Shaman Total Defense
- Round 3 Missed with 9 (8 +5 -4 from soft cover)
- - Monster dropped by team at this point
Healed X 1 by Shaman for 7 X1 from CLW wand 5
- Returned to full HP (Minus burn)
Traps avoided on rest of floor
Encounter 3
On Rope bridge with two bat swarms
Avoided fight by running across bridge opening door rushing and closing door
- No damage taken by party
Encounter 4
Lasted 2 rounds
Consisted of Three weak cultists
- Round 1 - Missed with 15 - (Roll of 10+4+1)
- - One cultist Charmed by Sorcerer
- - Another cultist dropped by Bard and effect from Fortune Spurn template from cultist)
- Round 2 - Did not act prior to dropping of second cultist was dropped by combo of Sorcer daze/shaman/bard/fortune spurn
- - Third cultist questioned as to what was going on and sent on his way.
Encounter 5
Lasted 4 rounds
Consisted of Wight (Fortune spurn template added)
- Round 1 Hit with 25 (Rolled 19+4+1+1(Bard courage) did 8 damage (Rolled 2 on 1d6+4+1+1)
- - Used move action to get in room
- - Bard also moved in room and started Bardic Music Courage before attack (Maintained throughout battle)
- - Shaman was dropped beginning of round by surprise attack
- Round 2 Hit with 25 (Rolled 19+4+1+1(Bard courage) did 8 damage (Rolled 2 on 1d6+4+1+1)
- - Wight moved and attack bard and missed with 18 (Bard AC 18)
- - Bard took 8 points of damage and 1 point of Con drain
- - Sorcer Magic Missile
- Round 3 Missed with 14 (Rolled 8+4+1+1)
- - Wight moved to me and attacked missed with 15 (AC 17)
- - Bard fired with bow
- - Sorcer Magic Missile
- Round 4 Took 5 foot step and attacked
- - Hit with 21 (Rolled 15+4+1+1) did 10 damage (Rolled 4 on 1d6+4+1+1)
- - Wight dropped at this point
No other encounters to report at this time.
Did not have to take burn as I was able to keep within 30 of target other then the 1 from force ward.
Things noticed
- 1. Was able to do things with light touch like open door that added the flare of opening doors from afar (Mage can do this also so not super special but most mages ive seem dont take mage hand)
- 2. Aether in general has a lack of blast form/substance to alter the blast other then range makes it feel bland.
- 3. Aether to a degree is a dead end (Composits with no other element but itself and only one blast available)
- 4. Burn aspect needs some tweaking as I can see at higher levels with the other element mastery (Due to composite and/or form/substance changes and/or Blast enhancement) this severely limits usage. It is weird that a level 1 with no magic items can burn as many times as a level 12 with much more to pay for from the same effect at level 12 that a level 1 would have to pay. (Extend range, for instance, at level 1 is 1 burn aka 1HP while at level 12 it would be 1 burn aka 12HP.) It Feels weird that it cost more for a level 12 to use a level 1 ability as a level 1 when the character by level 12 should be better trained to manage it. (I know there is the specialization in form/substance but these have no effect on wild talents that are non blast related which is weird.) My suggestion would be to turn it to a Barbarian type thing with the points lasting 10 min per burn to stop total resets of group(Kinetic Healing)as well as over using of abilities with little long range issue. "You take 8 points of burn to do blue flame four times. If you want to wait round for the 1hr 20min to reset back to normal bad things can and will happen." Even make it that rest consist of doing nothing but relaxing thus you can't just burn into the ground and then have the party crawl until reset and then go fast.
- 5. Was doing about as much damage as the bard with his short bow and less then the Shaman with the two handed great sword (Sounds about right but will be an issue with monsters with extreme hardness or DR and no means to bypass)
- 6. Hitting felt about right thankfully I only had one encounter to deal with soft cover but that was thanks to party working with me and positioning.
- 7. Force ward - I think the flavor was nice. Although I was able to utilize it a lot because this was a true dungeon crawl (Lots of perception checks for traps etc) it was able to be reset for each encounter. I can see how in rapid combat though this might be an issue as it will not have a chance to regen. Maybe adding a secondary effect to take 1 burn to full regen the shield usable only once a round might be a good addition for this.
- 8. Aether loses out on Kinetic Form (Huge boon for the other 4 Elements) and has no level 10 Wild talents to equal what the other elements get. Again the feeling of a dead end with Aether and or late level wild talents. Even the level 16 talents Aether has 1 while the others have 3 or more. Something should be added to Aether to bring in line with the other elements.
I am going to be playing again on Monday will have a report for the game then.
That is the point Jeff... It shouldn't be that way. A product well designed with a multitude of source books to create a fantasy world for people to dream up an imagine a character going on grand adventures should never feel pigeon holed into well I am melee let me grab my two handed weapon and get power attack or I won't be effective.
I mean look at all the stories you read or movies that you watch heros come in all shapes and sizes. So I am guessing following "The year of the two handed weapons" That small character will be out because their damage threshold will be too low.
I would think Piazo would want to inspire people to imagine characters beyond just the two handed weapon medium sized melee character. I would assume that Society would also have that same stance to help foster and inspire characters beyond this closed view.
Sadly it just seems that despite all of these new classes and races becoming available as well as well written source books to add to the pathfinder universe this bottleneck is a stranglehold from allowing people to build more then just a "two handed weapon melee fighter" if they want to build an effective melee combatant.
I am glad that after sitting and listening to all the post here I have figured out what the sky key is...
It is a two handed Adamantine Great Sword... with power attack behind it of course.
Well my Pally is set for season 6 knowing he already carries this sky key, and it is magic too (Level 6 of course and no where near 3-4). The rest of my characters are screwed unless I am in a party with this mystical sky key in the group.
At least I know before forming any group for season six at least two adventures must be carrying this sky key for true success to be possible it would seem.
@Jeff
I think you are missing the point that Medtec was trying to say here so I will attempt to reword it a little and hopefully you will understand as I also had a horrible experience with this scenario. My OP I started to write last night that will go into more detail as to the problem I see will probably hit the message boards Monday but I will tackle this little part now.
Using the 2d6+9 average two handed fighter that both of the Jeffs have put do an average damage of 16 damage. (I am writting this part just so we have our damage out there.) Assuming the party is not filled with just two handed power attacking fighters I will assume that most of the rest of the party is one handed weapon users as can be seen looking at the pregen characters that Pazio has. But for the sake of argument I will give you two characters built the same way so we can pass the threshold.
Spoiler:
These two characters would do and average damage together of 32 damage a round. Both of them would have their damage taken down by the DR 10 ADM leaving only 12 damage per round. As the monsters have over 48+ HP this would mean that it would take on average for 2 level 3 fighters that you have given us as an example 8+ rounds of fighting (assuming that these fighters are not taken out by the 12-20+ damage these things are throwing out a round). I say all that because we all know that the enemies we face just stand in one spot and do everything to make it easier for the team like not attacking or moving.(/sarcasm)
But back onto the topic at hand we are talking 8+ rounds of damage for 2 of your fighters to push through this but wait there is more that was still not mentioned. Both of the enemies have a self regeneration and a resurrect other ability they can use once. So now your 8+ round on average just shot further up (Still assuming that neither of these fighters drop from the amount of damage that they can pump out)
What I think you are missing the point at is Medtec was not arguing that damage reduction should not be part of PFS but that the DR 10 (anything) makes it seem insurmountable at the 3-4 bracket but again you know what I would have even been okay with that had the monsters with the DR 10 did not have a self regeneration and resurrection ability leading to undue the little damage they would have been doing up to this point.
I mean imagine it you are these fighter that you have given me. You spend 8+ rounds beating on two monsters to have not once not twice but three time have that little damage that you have caused to be taken away like it never happened. This is the main part that makes it disheartening and makes it feel like a lost cause very quickly.
To bring this all back around I do not think he is saying that there should be no DR at the 3-4 tier but that the 10 DR was extreme given that it was a 3-4 tier. Had it been 5 DR then at least the party would have been making meaningful advancement at that point and thus the regeneration and resurrection effect would have been more then demoralizing as if it was DR 5 the entire team of 3-4s could have been doing damage on average instead of just the two handed weapon fighting fighter or in medtec's example the rogue.
So you say that the team was not tactically sound I say that given just the numbers I have given you using the example fighter that you have given me (that is tactically sound I assume you are saying you are) this is a demoralizing fight for the 3-4 bracket. But again in my example I used two of your fighters for my average rounds so had you only had one of your fighters you would have to double this number rounds making the situation even further demoralizing for the team. Ah yes your fighters that has been doing an average of 6 damage for the last 16+ rounds now will have that little damage taken away three times (that is technically sound) is not going to be demoralized and feel beaten?
