Dr Davaulus

Timothy McNeil's page

Organized Play Member. 122 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Tamec wrote:
I also (suggested by my VC) put red stars on my rules sheet for every permanent kill, but there are only 3 (level 4 fighter standing toe to ectoplasm with a wraith, samurai who decided to go off alone, and someone entered the magic circle in Night March of Kalkamedes)

I have never understood judges who take pleasure in PC deaths. Not in the 33 years I have been playing RPGs.

3/5

The Fox wrote:


This thread has me wondering how much multiclassing everyone is doing with their PFS characters. You can include all classes you PLAN on taking for the character, not just current levels (the other thread counts current levels, but I'm more interested in total builds).

1) Was straight class, but forced rebuild resulted in Summoner/Dragon Disciple (5/6)

2) Ranger/Rogue/Horizon Walker (7/4/3)
4) Wizard (Transmuter)/Monk of the Four Winds (11/2)
5) Cleric/Paladin/Ranger/Holy Vindicator (5/2/1/3) [My least favorite character to play, at least in regards to combat.]
7) Bard (Arcane Duelist)/Magus (Kensai) (2/8)
8) Alchemist (Grenadier)/Wizard (Evoker) (5/1)
10) Inquisitor/?

The Dragon Disciple would keep going in the Prestige Class. Ability score boosts are huge, but I just want her to be more dragon.

The trapfinding Ranger would likely stay Ranger for any future levels.

The Arcane Monk is really now just a wizard with evasion. So keep going wizard.

The 'Cleralagider' (Holy Vindicator) is such a mutt that I don't know if anything could save him.

The Bard/Magus (built so I could have a PC who I thought approximated a swashbuckler)...I'm thinking of finishing her with more levels of magus. But there isn't much of a drawback to taking more levels of bard.

The Alchemist/Wizard is really just an Alchemist who can cast a handful of spells (and doesn't need to UMD for wizard scrolls).

The Inquisitor is likely to pick up a level of Barbarian at some point just so he can access to Amplified Rage as a teamwork feat. Otherwise, I have no idea what to do with him.

At some point I'll get around to building my Ninja/Paladin.

3/5

I use table tents. I find them incredibly helpful when other players use them as well.

3/5

reika michiko wrote:

I need to choose 6 more (4 int, 2 linguist and aasimar truespeaker)

So far I have:
Common
Celestial
Polygot (Ancient Explorers)

I would recommend:

‣ Abyssal and/or Infernal (to be able to speak with some pesky Oracles in addition to demons and devils)
‣ Tien (you may no longer be Lantern Lodge, but your character can come from Tian Xia)
‣ Kelish (because it is the language of a huge empire)

There are some other languages that were VERY useful in Seasons 0-3, but they have largely fallen by the wayside.

3/5

N N 959 wrote:

Let me address a lot the repetitive rationales that are put forth

4. Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean something isn't offensive in the context of US culture.

5. Allowing slavery is condoning it because PFS makes the rules.

6. Broadcasting that slave owners are welcome in your game is tantamount to promoting it.

7. Arguing that there's nothing wrong with slave ownership in PFS ...is not the moral high ground.

Okay. None of these are intelligent, reasonable assertions (they are not arguments because there is no structure supporting them).

While there is (mostly) universal agreement in the developed world that slavery is bad (meaning morally wrong), when viewed in an actual historical context, slavery is usually the engine that drives the economy. Knowing nothing of slavery other than its history in the United States will cause one to fully misunderstand how slavery works in a (very loosely) medieval inspired fantasy setting.

Furthermore, as slavery has been built into the setting of Golarion, it would be quite odd if it vanished from the OP campaign supported by Paizo. If, on the other hand, the argument is simply one that slavery should still exist but players should be forbidden from engaging in it, there may be room for discussion. Still, for character concepts built around the background of slaveholding on Golarion (which could be as varied as escaped slave to slave merchant) would be excised by fiat. More than that, the campaign would then be actively supporting Andoran and condemning Cheliax based solely on views in regards to slavery.

The modern objection to slavery bears more out of the concept of "individual human dignity" than anything else. This is something that is very important in the actual play of PFS (because it is the basis of respecting all other players at the table and in the campaign), but not something that needs to be extended into the fantasy roleplay as a matter of rules.

Speaking only for myself, I have one character which owns a slave out of eleven active. That character owns one slave. And that slave became owned so that the character has someone maintaining 'home' while out adventuring. And if the Andoran PC had made any effort to care at all about freeing slaves in that scenario, it is likely that there would be no slaves owned. Now, I honestly don't care whether the rules allow for that slave to owned or not by the PC. Money was spent and, aside from giving me a better sense that the character's home is maintained while away, there is no benefit (or penalty?) to having the slave. Do I think this is in any way, shape, or form an act of condoning slavery in real life or the real world? No. It hasn't led me to encourage other characters to own in-game slaves. As a matter of fact, I think the fact that said character purchased (and then kept) a slave came up less than five times after it happened (at level 4; said character is now 13th level).

Finally, there is no real moral consequence to whether or not slavery is permitted in PFS. There may be some supposed moral consequence (such as a person making judgments about the moral character of others based upon in-game, in-character play), but it is ephemeral. Now, it is extremely frustrating to listen to (or read posts from) people not trained as ethicists construct flawed arguments on a variety of subjects. It always will be for me. But N N 959's ongoing crusade to make everyone fall in line with him/her is worse than that.


Matthew Pittard wrote:
C) Am I right in thinking that the Shoanti are at least partially based on the Native American culture?

I am not in-the-know as to what Paizo had in mind with the Shoanti, but they always seemed more in line with the nomadic Eurasian tribes of the pre-CE era. And the tattoos remind me more of an appropriation of the Picts distinctive (temporary) body art to an "uncivilized" culture.

But I have seen MANY Shoanti barbarians. And at least one went spirit totem.

3/5

The Fox wrote:

How many of you bring guns to PFS?

I am not asking about gunslingers in the game. I want to know: how many of you bring real life handguns to PFS games along with your dice and books?

For those of you who "carry" to PFS games: why?

For those of you who do not bring guns to the game: why not?

Why would I bring a firearm to a gaming session?

Am I expecting to do some target shooting? Am I planning on shooting someone? Do I think I need to "defend myself" during the session with lethal force?

I take public transportation (an hour there, about an hour and half back) to the store at which I play in Chicago. Occasionally there are dangerous people on the train. And I would never bring a firearm to that environment. I want to be clear. I would NEVER bring a firearm to the occasionally moderately dangerous CTA train ride.

3/5

Tarma wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

If the aasimar is immune to dominate person, just dominate the person next to them into beating them to a pulp. No biggie.

I have two responses to this.

1.) In later season scenarios, this is probably not as easy of a thing to do, since they are designed for six PC's and it is very likely that may be the only turn that the creature takes.

2.) If it is just that easy of a thing to do, why is there so much hate against Mind Buttressing and the Clear Spindle Ioun stone?

I don't understand the logic of your statements, Tarma. Actually, I've had great difficulty following any of your positions. I would like to understand.

In regards to your first bullet point, if an encounter is designed for six PCs, then it has properly taken into account what that number of characters may be capable of doing. Still, there are purpose-driven builds (see: almost any archer) that are fully able to kill one or two formidable baddies per round. This has arisen for two reasons. The first is system mastery. The second is the play environment; there is not more in-game reward for having a character well-vested in Golarion and the emerging PFS storyline than for having a master of combat encounters.
In regards to your second bullet point, well, you really are answering your own question. And I don't think that is what you intended (nor what you think you are doing). You keep confusing your arguments and it makes it hard for someone to follow. You appear to be arguing that because two playable races have limited immunity to certain spell effects (this as the result of Paizo making the mistake of out-of-the-boxing Aasimars and Tieflings instead of knowing to make them Native Outsiders with the Humanoid subtype in regards to PFS play), every PC should have the right to purchase an enhancement to armor that is more powerful. Essentially, you are arguing that PCs should be able to buy their respective ways out of danger from selected spell effects. That is not a position I agree with, but, based upon other comments you have written in this thread, neither do you. There seems to be a lack of logical consistency.
In regards to the misapplied Aasimars and Tieflings, they are also blocked from several (potentially) beneficial spells because of the lack of the Humanoid type. You make no mention of this (that I have seen; I apologize if I missed any comments in regards to that from your posts).

But I am having much difficulty in following your arguments, Tarma.

3/5

hotsauceman wrote:

My gun slinger is built around going first. She has her dex into it, a trait, a racial trait, Her favored class bonus(1/2 to Gunslings intitiative, a class feature, and possibly a feat(Imprved initiative)

Many things I put into my chracter are not going to be used, and be useless. Not to mention She quite often needs to go first so the other chracters are not in the way(I have yet to get precise shot)

To ask a silly question, is Precise Shot not a better investment for a Gunslinger than Improved Initiative (given the bonuses already incorporated in the described character)?

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
heck, I've had posters point out that I should not raise my PCs Perception so high that he finds the traps on a "Take 10" - you know, there should be a limit on skill bonuses!

I've had a previous VC (now in a different region) complain that one of my PC's Perception bonus makes it possible to spot invisible creatures, let alone the "Take One" to find magical traps. How dare a character have an ability that contributes to the well-being of the party, right?

Of course, my current VC has a PC who is built to find, disable, and/or bypass traps.

I would kind of like to see this discussion wrap up. The gist of it seems to be that someone has a problem with how other people enjoy the game. The proposed solution is to alter the effect of the game mechanics to bring it into lines with this person's expectations. I have no idea why, other than courtesy, this is being entertained at this length.

3/5

I think that, in a perfect world, all scenarios (and even specials) would be available to all players. Some specials do not travel well; I don't know if this is the case with PFS specials, but other OP campaigns have had ones that either have an immediate effect on the story or directly affect a region.

Much like I don't like the notion of a player being able to spend his/her way to a better character, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that scenario/special availability being tied to one's ability to travel (and at specific times).

3/5

Tarma wrote:

High initiatives are a problem when they used exactly as intended. Most of the examples given in this thread so far have been situations where the person with high init doesn't attack on their first turn, so therefore it's ok.

But if someone who has a high initiative goes first and does what they're supposed to do, then it's a problem. The demon hunter I mentioned earlier (Let's call him Dante), if he has a high initiative and then moves and attacks the demon and kills it in the first attack then he's glory hog or an unsocial player.

That means that there's a problem with initiative.

Double my bafflement and add in a heap of befuddlement.

If a player obeys the rules AND directs a PC in an appropriate combat manner (unless you have a different idea of what "does what they're supposed to do" means), that player is the problem, in part or in whole?

PFS isn't a home campaign. The scenarios are still written with the underlying assumption that the parties succeed. Players prefer for their characters to not only survive combats, but to decisively win them.

As an experienced judge (you know, a GM in an OP campaign), I know how to get around whatever problems initiative would seem to present. But they are hardly anywhere near the actual mechanical issues that one would address in the name of game balance.

3/5

Tarma wrote:

From a GM perspective, those games are not nearly as interesting with incredibly high inits. Most monster initiatives are only in the +2 to +4 range. Having a 13-19 init mod on every PC starts getting to the point where as a GM you should probably skip the fight because there's not point to playing through it.

I'm also finding it interesting that whenever the subject of a race boon comes up, there are a lot of complaints that it won't fit thematically with PFS for whatever reason. But when a level 2 PC has the same initiative modifier as a CR 27 Demon Lord that can cast 10 wishes a day, we're all kind of ok with that. :)

First of all...the assumption that initiative modifiers are the end all and be all of combats baffles me.

And I am okay with PCs built according to approved rules being allowed to play. Especially given the false equivalency built into the question of the challenge of a monster being directly tied to what range it falls into in a round of combat.

3/5

I'm in favor of people getting more invested in the setting.

Also thought it would have been a good idea for there to be boons that allow for PCs to be from noble houses (or important trade families) instead of the steady stream of expanded racial options and mechanical benefits.

3/5

Mystic Lemur,

I understand not inviting back players who are rude. But I think framing the issue in that light misses the issue that there are players who feel that the attitude of the Society (as represented by the VCs in-game) is one of not valuing the player characters. You actually reinforce this idea in your post. As much as it may seem alien to some people, players are much more likely to feel connected to and invested in the storyline and NPCs if they feel their own characters matter. If their characters are appreciated.

3/5

Congratulations, Chris. Glad I had the chance to meet you at DCV.

3/5

I'm not sure that there should be an option of using Acrobatics for Day Job checks. As much as I would love to have the option to have a +31 bonus rather than a +20 bonus [which is where the Magus stands with Perform (Dance) Day Job checks], the in-game benefits of the skill are such that allowing it to serve as a means of gaining more character wealth seems to be unbalanced on the face of it.

I do like the idea for the Pawn Shop.

But for skills that have significant and frequent uses in the scenarios, any vanity that would allow them to be used for Day Job checks should also impose some sort of penalty on that check (say, -5).

That is my immediate reaction to this.

3/5

John Compton wrote:
I'll keep these in mind when time frees up to revisit the pregenerated characters. It may be some time before we see such an update, but I appreciate having a list of corrections, as that speeds up the process later.

To ask a silly question: Why would/will there be "some time" before the issues are addressed? It is character building. It isn't rewriting backstories or completely reformatting the layouts. Isn't this something that Paizo would want to get right as quickly as possible?

3/5

Cire wrote:

I believe that if you dont have a 15 int or charisma you would have to roll a DC30 UMD to emulate the required ability score in addition to the DC25 UMD to emulate the class feature you are missing (spells).

I could be wrong on that though!

Use a Scroll: Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don't have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check. This use of the skill also applies to other spell completion magic items.

Emulate an Ability Score: To cast a spell from a scroll, you need a high score in the appropriate ability (Intelligence for wizard spells, Wisdom for divine spells, or Charisma for sorcerer or bard spells). Your effective ability score (appropriate to the class you're emulating when you try to cast the spell from the scroll) is your Use Magic Device check result minus 15. If you already have a high enough score in the appropriate ability, you don't need to make this check.

So, yes, to emulate an ability score for a 5th level spell, one would need a UMD check of 30. And a separate successful UMD check for the scroll at DC 29 (in most instances).

It can be done.


Eric Saxon wrote:

I'll give a totally different opinion from anyone else. "Don't multi-class" would be my advice. You'll hurt your PC's efficiency in the long run. A straight rogue, a straight fighter or a straight wizard is the most optimized option you'll get in most cases.

I'm only speaking on my behalf and no one else and personal experiences may vary, however I've yet to see any multi-classed PC that isn't gimped by the experience.

I want to note that I don't know Eric and I do not know what his experiences with multi-classing are.

My experience is that multi-classing can improve the versatility of a PC (which, depending on what the player wants to experience or accomplish at the table, may be a good or bad thing; there most definitely is a school of "I do one thing, I do it well, and then I move on to do it again").
For me:
a) My Ranger/Rogue/Horizon Walker would be slightly less good at finding traps (+46 in favored terrain) if she were straight Rogue. She would have less HP and a lower BAB, but she would have more skills and more Sneak Attack dice. As she does not have much in the way of precision damage, it is not something she has to rely upon to be effective. The build gave me much happiness from 5th level on.
b) My Cleric/Paladin/Ranger/Holy Vindicator is a complete and total mess. He is a prime example of how not to multi-class (he casts worse than a straight Cleric, fights worse than a straight Paladin, and has a few Pretige abilities that don't really provide much benefit). Sadly, the concept of the character is wholly covered in the Hosipitaller (sp?) archtype of the Paladin.
c) My Arcane Monk (mostly Wizard) did many scenarios with the local VC's Wizard, Menke. Menke was a much better Wizard than my Arcane Monk. But, as the current VC would constantly point out, the Arcane Monk could do a lot of things (from Scout to Tank to Blaster to tool box caster) well enough to always be helpful in a party.
d) My Bard/Magus (not a build I would recommend to anyone, at least not how I did it) is always useful. In scenarios where she cannot use her melee or offensive spellcasting, she still has limiting Bardic abilities (and picked up two great feats and better saves for the two levels of Bard).
e) The Summoner/Dragon Disciple...much better combat skills than if she had stayed straight Summoner. Sure, the eidolon is MUCH weaker, a trade-off I was more than willing to make than to completely abandon all of the character concept after the forced rebuild killed her old archetype.
f) I have a Wizard (Evoker)/Alchemist who is still low level, but his toolbox abilities have made him much more versatile than he would have been as going straight in either class.

I do have a straight Fighter (who uses a bow), straight Cleric (channeler), and straight Oracle (Metal). I feel confident that all of those characters are best suited to stick with what they do.

But I am of the opinion that there are plenty of fine experiences to be had multi-classing or not.


Violinist wrote:
Oh, no. I'm a rogue dipping into sorcerer. I'm intending for it to give more utility and help with sniping. I also just generally think the concept of a rogue tattoo sorcerer is really f&*&in cool. I was just uncertain about when to take the levels, is all.

Third level.

There actually is no single "correct" answer, but one should consider what one wants the PC to be and to be able to do. A second level Rogue is likely to have Evasion, which is one of the big, early benefits available. Second level also qualifies with the first Rogue Talent.

By taking Sorcerer at third level, the PC is adding a range of abilities he/she will be able to use from that point forward. If there are not going to be many levels of Sorcerer, then it is likely that the bloodline abilities are not going to scale up particularly well and thus are well served to be gained earlier. It also opens up all of the equipment an arcane caster (such as a Sorcerer) can use without having to worry over skill checks.

I would like to point out, however, that there are many ways to build an effective PC.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Mistele wrote:
I just finished playing in the Kingmaker Adventure Path with an online group. I played an Archaeologist Bard (yes, of course with a whip), and I threatened to name him Wisconsin Smith. Didn't follow through on that, but I did name him Deckard Kimble (after two of Harrison Ford's other roles). :-)

When it comes to sending up Indiana Jones (in naming conventions), it should be (and has been) Wisconsin Platt. You act as though Mark E. Rogers didn't write a series of illustrated books built around a feline samurai named Miaowara Tomokato (or 'meow, tomcat').

3/5

I have a Cleric of Love named Drakaar Nawaar. While everyone seems to get where the name came from, he quickly just becomes Drakaar at the table. Most of my other characters are corruptions of names from mythology, literature, or history.

3/5

My characters have worshiped (or primarily venerate, since there is a loosely established, though not interconnected and therefore coherent, pantheon):
Iomedae (2), Nethys (2*), Gozreh, Irori, Daikitsu, Shelyn (2)

I have seen a fair number of worshipers of Iomedae, but most of the casters I have seen choose Asmodeus, Cayden, Pharasma, or Sarenrae.

* A forced rebuild brought one character into accordance with the explicit rules that only approved deities may be worshiped (even by non-divine spellcasting characters).

3/5

Eric Saxon wrote:
Axe +2 with the (+2 flame ability) makes it a +4 weapon. At lvl. 5, that means its way above the fame limit. That's what the boons are supposed to be, giving you things beyond your fame limit.

I have not seen any boons that grant items (or I should write that I cannot recall any of them that do as much at the moment). Boons tend to grant mechanical bonuses such as an Extra Trait, a +2 bonus on a skill, free (up to 4PP) property, and so on. They also open up races to play.

Moreover, you consistently reference "the fire (later flame) ability". If this is the Flaming enhancement, it is a +1 bonus. Has been since 3E. Before that there was the Flame Tongue. At any rate, the +2 Flaming weapon is in the 18,000 gp price range and not the 32,000 gp price range, which means it should be available for nominal purchase around 7th-9th level.

If I'm wrong on the math, what boons offer, or the Flame Tongue (my favorite Pool of Radiance weapon), I'm sure I will be swiftly and thoroughly corrected.

3/5

My notes (for whatever they are worth):

Your PC does not have his/her armor equipped (which is why the Hero lab sheet still presents an AC 13 and not an AC 16). Not an issue except for using the program to give you the proper derived numbers. I would assume that no weapons are equipped which is why no attack options are shown on the sheet. It is an HL issue (if one at all).

Feat Selection:
I would advise against early heavy investment in Two-Weapon Fighting. As a Ranger, the PC can select Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat for free. If your PC had a higher STR, I could understand the race to add Double Slice. However, what I am seeing is a Longsword/Short Sword combination. This would mean that the PC would be attacking at +0/+0 to hit for 1d8+1 and 1d6 damage. This does not appear to be one of the better routes to take.
My experience has been that PCs which focus on Two-Weapon Fighting make the best out of it by using two of the same type of weapon. Mechanically, a light weapon (Short Sword or Kukri) is preferable to attempting to wield dual one-handed weapons because of the scaling penalties.
If your PC selected Weapon Finesse as a 1st level feat, dual wielding light weapons (Short Swords, Light Maces) would be at +2/+2 to hit for 1d6+1/1d6.
Endurance does not come up that often in OP play, and as standard Rangers get it as a bonus feat, it is likely not an optimal choice at 1st level.

For the most part, the sheet looks to be in order (I don't use HL; I very much do not like how HL lays out the information). If you think it is a good representation of how you imagine the character, I would say stick with it. But I would advise to move the 13 from CHA to STR. The only thing it changes is the PC's carrying capacity (for the better). Unless there is a plan to increase CHA at 4th or 8th level.

3/5

militarymisfit wrote:

Hey all,

I'm new to Pathfinder and my first game is tomorrow. I was hoping some of you might take a look at my new character and verify it's in playable condition. I dont want to show up tomorrow and have to waste everyones time making corrections.

I appreciate any help you can give me.

Here he is:

http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/briandteel/79db12af-0c39-45f9-b5dc -f0529019d43d_zps8653b4cc.jpg

and

http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/briandteel/HeroLab-MosephShadowsco ut_zps1d349c48.jpg

Please let me know what you think.

I think you would have a better chance of getting help if you had opted for clickable links and then if there were images at either of the pages listed (there was a sorry... message when I checked).

3/5

Jeff Morse wrote:
Its not mean. Why should you be allowed to play your character, use your stuff and not have any negatives. I know it was discussed and ruled on somewhere on here, but havnt found it. For me the risk is part of this game, so playing a pregen wasnt fun for me so played my own knowing could die.

My understanding was that the purpose of the replay rule was to let players play and for players to have fun. The idea of "all risk, no reward" is not one I am willing to endorse as universally fun. That is likely why there are rewards for the risks in standard play. The only possible reason I could fathom to implement a policy where the re-playing player puts a PC at risk would be to discourage outrageous risk-taking on behalf of those players.

I also think (as I understand what you have written, Jeff; please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation) that you are applying your own standards of what constitutes "fun" as a rationale to support a position you already endorse without further reasoned justification. This isn't a severe criticism; I doubt that most people on the forums want to read lengthy, dry, and thoroughly cited posts in order to understand a point. But I do think the 'this is how I have fun' (where that I is any of us as individuals) argument is one that is hard to apply across the board.

Now, I do want to be clear that my position that there should be no risk in replaying a scenario. I would prefer that replaying players not use the opportunity to limit the amount of resources expended by the other players (thus effectively limiting the cost of the other, regular players), but I don't think I know how to write that into a rule for the campaign. This is not to say that I don't see why some people feel there should be consistency in risk, but consistency would seem to demand consistency (risk without reward is inconsistent).

My thought on the subject (at the moment; I am more than willing to reconsider).

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its 4713 and we're pathfinders. We ALL have knives!

Love the reference (my favorite scene in the 1968 film version). But not everyone is Alexander approaching the Gordian Knot.

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Timothy McNeil wrote:

'Your training allows you to slip bonds and escape from grapples. ...The DC of your Escape Artist check is equal to the binder’s combat maneuver bonus +20.'

One would assume the check is against the ropes/traditional bindings in which slaves may be held. Just a thought.

Right, but you don't break into the slave pits and then use escape artist to pull a slaves arms out of the ropes. I mean unless you're winding up captured and sold into slavery that often...

No. With Use Rope no longer a skill (or more precisely, not a skill in PF), one would use Escape Artist to untie a knot or undo bindings. I appreciate that Disable Device would be used on devices (manacles, shackles, etc.), but it likely should not be employed in all situations.

Again, just a thought.

3/5

My reading of the Guide states that a person only receives a Chronicle for playing (the first time) or GMing (the first time). I am unclear how a Chronicle or conditions are to be applied to a PC that is, for all purposes of bookkeeping, not there.

I have replayed two scenarios (once to make a legal table, once to see if I would be happy with the version of a PC after the forced rebuild). I didn't expect or ask for a chronicle is those instances. Both times I cleared it with the GM well in advance.

If replaying (how common is it?) is something that can only put the PC at risk, then it would seem that the not at all discrete position is that players should not replay scenarios.

3/5

'Your training allows you to slip bonds and escape from grapples. ...The DC of your Escape Artist check is equal to the binder’s combat maneuver bonus +20.'

One would assume the check is against the ropes/traditional bindings in which slaves may be held. Just a thought.

3/5

Lastshade wrote:
I nearly killed him for it but I know the rules say we can't kill other players, even though his actions lead to one of our characters deaths.

I know this is not the thrust of the argument (or question), but there are both campaign rules and real world laws to discourage any killing of the PLAYERS. The players are the people at the table.

I know that PFS has no equivalent to the val'Mehan Emissary from LA (where a DC 50 Diplomacy check was something that could be made with regularity), but I feel that there probably should be more instances written into the scenarios where the interaction with the opposition is not (nearly) always skewed toward combat.

Having written that, it makes little conventional sense to begin diplomacy with known pirates from the disadvantageous position of being in the row boats. The better solution (to allow the Cleric to be played as the player desired) may have been to sneak onto the ship and then attempt a dialog from a more tactically sound position. However, it is up to the other players to voice their concerns before allowing another player to put their character's in danger.

My opinion on the matter.

3/5

The idea (I would assume) behind Paizo allowing in-game re-rolls with the purchase of approved product is that such an incentive will help move product. Stores need to move product to stay open. Open stores may allow for gaming space. Giving players incentive to support the store doesn't seem out of line to me. I can understand why this would not be a codified rule, but I certainly do not understand the logic of challenging it. Both are based in the idea that if the player spends money, there will be an in-game benefit.

3/5

I like the idea of boons that offer more RP than mechanical benefits. Titles are always good. Likewise, how about a boon that would let a select group actually be members of the extended Blackros family (or perhaps another family/group with whom the Society works)? Not thinking that it should have big (if any) benefits when it comes to game mechanics. Just thinking that it would be cool to have another way of connecting PCs to the emerging story lines and world in general.

3/5

CFet wrote:

Greetings, as above, can I choose to not have any traits for my character?

Cheers,
C

Out of curiosity, why would one want to make this choice?

3/5

David Bowles wrote:
I am just astounded at the amount of angsting and effort being put in over money. In my estimation, broken builds and lack of difficulty in playing up are way more of a culprit in this situation than the amount of cash being flung around. Thoughts?

Plenty of scenarios where playing up can result in insta-death via spell. And that is not counting Season Four where the encounters are finally in-line with opportunistic OP play (and unfortunate for those of us who, after four years of mostly manageable challenges, decided it would be a good idea to make underpowered PCs with a focus on the RP elements).

But character wealth can be a huge issue. There is a player local to me (somewhat) whose PCs always seem to have inexhaustible wealth. Being able to afford something like a Ring of Evasion for 10-11 play or even Boots of Speed for 6-7 play (meaning that the PC has that much more wealth than the average PC and can have these tasty items in addition to regularly expected items) can be a game changer.

As for broken builds...if it is within the rules and someone wants to play it, who am I (or who is anyone, other than the Paizo staff running the campaign) to say how someone is supposed to have fun or play the game? I know there is a cottage industry of complaining about builds and such, but I have never seen the constructive point in it.

Personally, I think frequent changes to the rules only frustrates the players. I know that it frustrates me, and I know that several players only sporadically pay attention to these changes. Maybe the overwhelming majority of players really enjoy frequent changes and updates to the governing rules of the campaign and I am out of step. It is a distinct possibility. Furthermore, since the introduction of new material and rule changes does not seem to lead to an option of periodically reworking existing PCs to fall-in-line, it seems that PFS is consistently geared towards the newer players or those who like making new characters.

So, I guess I have some level of frustration in regards to PFS. Is some character wealth related? Sure. Is it in the top 10? Maybe? I am trying to avoid listing my frustrations (I have a convention to attend this weekend and I'd prefer to be positive while there). There are plenty of ways to make an effective PC even while being wealth-deficient. I am only likely to notice a PC's wealth in items if the player tries to dominate (or coast through) a session.

3/5

I'm not going to listen to a podcast from what is, in essence, a publishing company. I very much want all relevant information in the written word format. When I can read the information, I will most likely have an opinion on the matter.

3/5

I can only hope that this change will require a different mandatory $20 softcover MUST HAVE AT THE TABLE book to replace the Society Field Guide.

I would rather have the option to completely rebuild my LL PC (he may have 4 XP instead of 3, which would make it illegal to just go ahead and do it) if the flavor if being ripped out of PFS. The change to a different faction is rather unappealing as there is no other faction that fits the concept. I suppose the answer is to never play the PC again. And to decide if I want to remain part of an OP campaign that seemingly has no idea what it is doing from one moment to the next.

3/5

My only thoughts on additional GM credit (and sorry if this has been addressed in other posts) would be specially issued sheets -- I'm imagining watermarked pdfs -- rewarded at the Star levels (so a maximum of five possible). I'm not even sure that I would want them to be XP & GP related, because I'm sure that this could be a cool way for people to earn society titles and acclaim for their PCs.

I will admit that I do not frequently judge the same scenario multiple times, but there came a point where I stopped caring about GM credit except for low level (1st-3rd) PCs.

3/5

#23 Tide of Morning can be run rather quickly.

It is not one of my favorites (quite the contrary), but I have had the pleasure of running a great group of players through it. If you aren't adding extra RP moments to it, it can be done in under three hours.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Mistele wrote:
In the RPGA, there were a very small number of people (no more than a handful) who managed to earn bans from RPGA play. Several earned multi-year bans for extensive forging of campaign documents (imagine someone making a bunch of forged PFS campaign boons, and you get the general idea). I know of one person who got a lifetime ban, for a physical assault during an RPGA game.

You jump up on a table and kick another player in the face, I think you have earned a lifetime ban.

3/5

Jason Wu wrote:
“If you need it, you don’t have it. If you have it, you need more of it. If you have more of it, you don’t need less of it. You need it to get it. And you certainly need it to get more of it. But if you don’t already have any of it to begin with, you can’t get any of it to get started, which means you really have no idea how to get it in the first place, do you? You can share it, sure. You can even stockpile it if you like. But you can’t fake it. Wanting it. Needing it. Wishing for it. The point is… if you’ve never had any of it… ever… people just seem to know.

For those who may actually be unfortunate enough to have never seen it:

Bruce Campbell talking about "it"

3/5

Mark Moreland wrote:

Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.

What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?

I usually want my PCs to play in a tier with appropriate challenges. For the most part, that means playing at level or playing down. However, I have made at least two PCs who were well ahead of what I took to be the normal power curve. I want to play at-level or up with them.

I also have one character with whom I will not play down as the build requires an inordinate financial investment in keeping her near the normal power curve.

But, for the most part, I want to play at level. I want to feel challenged (remembering that there is a difference between challenging a PC and frustrating the player, all scenario writers who think it is a great idea for all baddies from 6-7 up to have True Seeing...while taking my complaint with a grain of salt since not all scenario writers are doing this as of yet) and playing down with some of my PCs eliminates that. I don't like playing up unless I am convinced in my PC's abilities. And like I've written, that is about two of the nine I have for PFS.

3/5

Mystic Lemur wrote:
Timothy McNeil wrote:
No one ever seems to be all that concerned when the Neutral characters consistently do Good acts or the Chaotic characters thoroughly obey the law or sign-on to a moral code.
Is that what you want? Stricter enforcement of all alignments? "Evil" actions are more closely monitored because they are the ones most likely to prove disruptive to the game, both in and out of character. If you're the GM and you want to "warn" a monk because he's acting too Chaotic, then go for it.

No. I just think that people feeling the need to manage the alignment of other people's PCs is a ludicrous sentiment in an OP campaign. This isn't a discussion about disruptive behavior (unless I have missed everything written on this thread up to the point of my post).

I will warn players about evil acts (while simultaneously pointing out the ridiculousness of the Society being Neutral, but all of the PCs having to be Good or Neutral...which means that there are Evil Pathfinders, but the PCs cannot be them) largely because the regular practice of them seems to kill the RP element of the game. "Let's torture them to get the information" isn't good RP for me.

Anyway, I played in an OP campaign where the motto was "Actions have Consequences". They did. What the players did in mods, Battle Interactives, and LARPs had an effect on how the story was presented. And how players chose to handle things in-mod could lead to multiple different endings (instead of the PFS singular ending). That is not where this campaign is. And I don't feel the need to bigfoot someone else's playing style or enjoyment just because I happen to be judging that session. Will I warn the Paladin about evil acts? Every time. Have a asked a player how his Lawful Monk squares his actions with his code? Yes; I think I have done that with two different players now. But I have only had to deal with two disruptive players [one whom I have known for close to 10 years and has sporadic bouts of "only my interpretation is right" and the other who I have judged twice -- in Wisconsin -- whom I had to ask her to stop bullying her fellow players (OOC) or leave the table], and their problems had zero relation to alignment issues.

I know that is anecdotal. I know that my experiences are not universal. But I am of the informed opinion that trying to manage a PC's alignment from the position of GM (except where it is either spelled out in the adventure or at odds with the class or PC's deity) is not a great idea in OP play. I am aware that there are rules for it. Doesn't mean that the judge should be super eager to implement them.

My thoughts on the matter, up to where I thought the discussion was at the time of my previous post.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No one ever seems to be all that concerned when the Neutral characters consistently do Good acts or the Chaotic characters thoroughly obey the law or sign-on to a moral code.

3/5

Another grumpy thought.

If there is a significant uptick in the number of PC deaths in the newer Scenarios (which would seem to correlate, to some degree, with lack of objective mission success), perhaps there should be an effort made for the scenarios to be written in such a way that there is not just the 'party success' scripted ending. While I know PFS will never go the LA route (and have endings A-J depending on character actions and mission success), it would be nice to see at least some script for when the party does not accomplish its goal.

3/5

I would like more 7-11s than anything else.

I have largely stopped playing the 1-5s because: a) I have not enjoyed the story concepts behind them AS WELL AS the execution of them in the mechanics of the scenario, and b) I hate playing 1st and 2nd level PCs. I judge the newer 1-5s as needed, and try to do as much as I can to give the players a good experience, but I do not enjoy them.

Maybe this is a result of having 9 PFS characters or of lamenting that I am having some difficulty getting a group together for post 12th level play. But I don't want an undue number of scenarios for the lowest tier if the reason is that new players aren't able to play 'new' scenarios.

And that is my grumpy feelings on the matter.

3/5

My favorite PC? Probably my Ranger/Rogue/Horizon Walker, who was far from the best designed character in any regards other than Perception checks. She was a lot of fun to play, even if the majority of her conflicts were wholly debated within my head (such is the trouble with a very introspective character). But I prefer all my female PCs (Kiara the Arcane Monk; Hedda Gørsyn the Arcane Duelist/Kensia; Jenissa Halvarek the NO LONGER ALLOWED IN PFS)to my male PCs.

Least favorite? Bellarius D'Nassi, who is fun to roleplay (to a degree), but just became such a liability to party success that I had to stop playing him. What is truly infuriating about him is that the way I envisioned him became available with the Hospitaler archetype but PFS allows very little in the way of incorporating new material into existent PCs.

3/5

Bob,

I think that the situation is going to dictate whether a particular AC can be included or not. Most horses aren't going to be invited in for a nice meal or performance of a play. Almost nobody wants to let a dire tiger in their home (if it doesn't answer to them). Yes, the AC is a class feature, but it is one that I believe there should be some reasonable level of expectation that the AC may not be able to go everywhere the PC can. Large dinosaur AC on a boat? Even a rhinoceros?

I don't think a GM should go out of his or her way to keep a PC from having the AC available, but one of the trade-offs of the more mundane ACs is that they are more likely to be able to be accepted in more places. Clearly, if this is being brought up, we cannot just assume that "use your best judgment" is the best option. I'm curious to read what others have to say on the subject.

1 to 50 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>