Kaleb Hesse

Tomppa's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber. ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku 555 posts (942 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 31 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 555 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Ah, so what you're saying is that if you now check your points and they show 400, you wouldn't know if it included that extra 80 acp or if that extra was still missing?

Well, normal games give 4acp, 4xp, and 4 reputation. Convention games give slightly more. Your ACP should be roughly equal to the total xp on your 2e characters, minus any boons you might have purchased, or you could check the "summary" page and check how much reputation each of your characters have in total - your AcP should again be roughly equal to that, unless you've failed several secondary/primary missions.
GMing gives double the amount of AcP, so if you've GM'd a lot, then your AcP will be higher than your xp or reputation.

I guess you could use those stats to estimate whether or not the 80 acp is already included in your total or not.

For example:
My 8 characters have total fame of 459. I have 45 tables of GM credit. GM credits give double points, since nearly all of the games I've ran have been assigned to characters, half of those double points are already included in the 459 fame. So 4x45 = 180pts more, for a total of 639 points. I **should** have about 639 acp.
I've spent 160 on a sprite, 80 on a kayal, and 80 on a changeling, for a total of 320 aco spent, leaving 319 acp. However, I have 411 acp. That's roughly 90 more than what I've calculated, so it seems that my 80 acp have already been included.

("roughly", because I've run some games on conventions and on gamedays and those give slightly more acp, but then some adventures also give you bonus reputation, which is why the difference between my estimate what I should have (319+80=399) vs what I have (411) exists.)

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Michael Hallet wrote:
How do we know if you got the 80 AcP or not?

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si35?Pathfinder-Society-Year-4-Ru le-Updates#discuss

Quote:


Tech is aware of the problem and is currently reviewing the code to fix this issue. Once it’s fixed, you won’t have to do anything but refresh your points to fix the errors. Achievement Points can still be spent currently. We hope to have good news on this front very soon!

At the end of May, we also announced that we would be awarding every player a starting player grant of 80 Achievement Points for both Pathfinder and Starfinder Society. You may use these points to unlock an uncommon ancestry, other fun uncommon options, or just as a cushion for a couple of resurrections should your low-level character meet with an untimely critical hit. The aforementioned issues with Achievement Points are also blocking this grant for a small number of users, but that should be fixed shortly as well.

So, everybody got the 80 acp, it might not just show up yet on some people, and once it's fixed, they'll show up when you refresh your points.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Some scenarios explicitly give you an opportunity to rest.

Some imply that there's urgency even when there's not (and it seems like you aren't supposed to rest halfway through a dungeon).

Some scenarios don't explicitly tell you to "rest now" but certainly seem to assume that your characters rest - trailblazer's bounty is one of these, where the journey takes several days. Some encounters might be within the same day and thus you probably don't rest between them, but when the adventure says "after several more days", it's certainly assumed that your group sleeps through the night instead of marching on without rest (which would cause fatique after... I think after 16 hours of traveling without rest, but I haven't checked the actual time limit).

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

KOReldor wrote:
Some of my players have mentioned that they're upset with the fact that chronicle sheets don't have very many items on them, if any, especially compared to 1st edition. This bothers them even more if they find some really good item at the end of the mission; they don't get to use it and I have to say, "It's a treasure bundle." One of them mentioned that in a competing RPG, the GM writes down items (especially rare/magical items) found by the the PCs on their chronicle sheet and they get access to them. Is this a plan with 2nd edition? Is this already in place and I simply missed the notification? Or if not, what should I tell my players?

Finding uncommon items in scenarios is relatively rare, and when you do find uncommon items, they usually are listed on the chronicle sheet to give you access to them. Unlike in 1e, 2e rarely lists items you already have access to: There's usually no point in writing "wand of mage armour" and "+1 striking longsword" on the chronicle sheet because those are common items your character already had access to.

Are there any examples of items that are uncommon that a scenario gave to the players but weren't included in the chronicle sheet?

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

That's because there's only one uncommon spell in APG, and that's Ghostly Tragedy, which is set as restricted in the character options page.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that ritual is available at the moment, unfortunately - at least I don't know of any boons that might unlock it.

Some options with a similar theme would be Lover's Gloves (lvl 8 item), while messenger's rings (level 9 item) would allow you to cast the message spell at will (like the ritual does at critical success) and a wand of status would allow you to keep checking on each other's position and status at will.

Your characters can be married, and you may be able to (separately) acquire effects similar to those of the ritual, but the actual ritual itself is probably beyond reach.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Did you try refreshing your points in the GM/Event coordinator tab?

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

No, it is retroactive as well (so everybody should have gotten it). I think the AcP was granted at some point today or yesterday, and my AcP totals certainly reflect that.
Not sure if it's tied to registering the account, or actually having played (and had a game reported) at least one scenario.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Alex Speidel confirmed in the PaizoCon panel that everybody gets 80 AcP when they register for Organized play!

I think this is super nice, and double the amount I would have guessed a "new player AcP grant" would be, giving players the ability to purchase an uncommon ancestry as soon as they start playing.

That being said: character deaths, although rare, do happen at times, and it would be adviseable to not purchase a costly AcP ancestry boon until you have enough AcP saved up to afford a resurrection boon as well.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They still have access to the first room's shadow version - I think it would be reasonable from a GM to rule that if they realize their mistake and contact the lodge using the tablet to open the shadow pathway, it's open both on the material plane and the shadow plane, Otherwise they might also get stuck at the end if they destroy all of the devices while on the material plane, and this doesn't seem to be an intended 'hazard' or puzzle.

THIS ADVENTURE WAS UPDATED AFTER LAUNCH - THE HIGH TIER VERSION IS NOW SLIGHTLY LESS DEADLY, remember to re-download the scenario if you have the old version.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Understandable, and I appreciate a lot that you took the time to explain why and how stuff is (or rather, isn't) sanctioned.

Skeleton ancestry sounds super exciting, though, and it certainly brings hope that maybe one day we'll see other undead options too! (Looking at you, ghost and lich archetypes >.>)

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

That's problematic from the standpoint that it's a legal magic item and you can't just ban it completely. On the other hand, just turning it into an "automatically gives me 2 size reduction, kinda permanently" isn't what it does, either.
There should be a middle ground where the player can use it but not abuse it, while also keeping in mind not to rob the rest of the table of their game time.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Persepolis wrote:


Specific case: A player in my local Org Play community has a PC with a rod of wonder. An important part of his build is taking the rod somewhere secluded in the local town and simply using the wand until he gets a roll of 66—69 [Reduce wielder two size categories (no save) for 1 day]. He relies on this to buff his stealth, ranged attacks and so on.

The player pretends that the many side effects of the rod (fireballs, stinking clouds, summoned rhinos and elephants, etc) shouldn't matter, because he claims that no one is around to be affected by them and he can one-shot the summoned creatures. So he treats as just a matter of rolling dice until he gets what he wants, or even just doing it without the rolls.

This "Rod Of Wonder until I get what I want" is problematic, but not unheard of. Shifty makes a good point that one could rule that only the wielder - not their equipment - should be affected. Using the rod to get a (semi) permanent buff clearly isn't the intended purpose of the item.

Another thing is that you can't just handwave all the other effects of the rod. A lot of the rods effects affect "the target", so they should have a target (creature) when they are using the rod, and it's easy enough to state that tormenting random woodland creatures with harmful (or deadly) effects isn't going to cut it with the society, possibly being an evil act. Targeting themself is an option, but runs into other problems (mostly damaging yourself and having to take care of the wounds). There's also a chance to turn an object ethereal, but nothing states how this object is chosen, so it could affect the players equipments. Even if they can one-shot any summons, there would still be initiative which they could lose, possibly taking damage.

Dealing with all of these will take In Game Time, but also OOC time that could be spent running the adventure, and sometimes adventures don't have that extra time to prep, or the players don't have that extra time to just wait for someone to roll a bunch of dices and see if they get what they want.

You could shift it onto the rest of the players to provide pressure for him to cut it off - state that they need to decide a target, roll the dice, and go through the effects until they get the one they want (with the GM describing what happens and controlling the action, so no "speedrunning" or just skipping random effects), OR, until half of the other players decide they've had enough "alone time" with the wand and want to move on with the adventure - They can't hold the rest of the party up if everybody else wants to move on.

In any case, they shouldn't be able to just decide that they automatically get what they want out of the rod and disregard everything else the rod does. You should definitely talk about with your local VO and with the other GMs, though, to find a common approach (or not, table variation is part of the PFS life).

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Well, true, most spells don't need free hand, but there are still spells that do have material components which do require, plus you need a free hand to handle scrolls.

What part about panache/finisher mechanic makes it mechanically engaging?
Our group's swash retrained out of swash because they got frustrated with it, and I haven't seen more than a few swashes in organized play either. It just locks you into repeating the same couple actions over and over again, with no actions left for anything interesting - exactly the opposite of monk which gets to make two strikes with 1 action, then still has 2 actions to cast a spell, raise a shield, move, combat medicine, whatever they want.

It seems just like a 'feel bad' mechanic: move in, attempt to gain panache, fail, and your whole round is basically wasted. Or gain panache, move in, miss with the finisher, and your whole round is wasted again.
Or even if you get panache and do a finisher, you need to spend your last action to get the panache back, and if you fail, you're at a situation where your next round begins from square 0: Attempt to gain panache, lament if it fails.

The swash styles all have hidden drawbacks which makes the class challenging to build for a new player:
Battle Dancer's panache giving action doesn't normally do anything, it's just a wasted action.
Braggart would be good, if it wasn't for enemies that are immune to mental stuff, and the fact that if there are just 1 or 2 enemies, you can't utilize your demoralize more than once or twice and then they are immune.
Fencer has the same problem (feint is mental) (AND requires you to be adjacent, can't get panache from afar) OR you can create diversion (but DC goes up if you do so again). (Scout archetype fencer would be cool, though - skip charisma, feint as part of the scout's charge using stealth instead)
Gymnast sounds good until you realise that finisher is, well, finisher, so you can't trip an enemy for panache after using your panache.
Wit is probably the best (and honestly, the only one I could imagine using), especially with one for all.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I think one of the reasons why people love 2e monk is that all the previous monks have been so... awful. 3.5 and PF 1e monks were just horribly MAD and needed a lot of love, support, and buffs to work in any sensible way - Unchained Monk was a bit better but didn't have as much support otherwise as the original 1e monk. So, people may just generally be happy that they now have an actually viable and working monk class.

Given the Society Play for context, most people are concerned for if their character/build is viable for the early levels, not late levels - monk is tied in AC with champion for the first 6 levels which makes them very appealing - AC is probably most important stat for surviving combat because of how crits work. (incidentally, this makes Barbarians one of the worst martials - especially giant instincts - taking -2 to already poor AC is just huge, and barbarians tendency to go for a 2-hander instead of sword and shield is another problem. Barbarians aren't -bad- per say, it's just that the most stereotypical depiction (Iconic, even) is just horrible to play with).

As others have pointed out, action economy is a huge thing. The other "strike twice" feats tend to require a ranged weapon (usually 2-handed) or two weapons, while flurry allows you to wield a shield, OR pick up a spellcasting dedication and use your free hand for spells. Ranger gets the similar "1-action, strike twice" ability but only against their hunted targets and only with 2 different weapons or a ranged weapon, fighter gets a similar ability At Level 14 AND it requires 2 weapons.

While monk feats definitely are good, you don't really need that many of them - maybe a stance or monastic weaponry, and stunning fist. The rest of the important stuff are baked into the class abilities, making multiclassing very viable for a monk without sacrificing much of your core build.

The save progression. Monk has the best save progression.
Sure, other classes finish with the same spread, But monk gets to pick which ones they want and That Is Huge: You can tailor your saves depending on the kind of enemies you're facing OR which of your stats need support. Don't plan on taking KI feats and your wisdom isn't good? Pick up better will saves!
Playing in a campaign heavy with dragons or something? Pick up better reflex saves to avoid those breath weapons!

I do think that monk could have used a bit more support for the higher levels, though. At level 10+, going for your preferred martial class and picking up monk dedication and flurry + stunning fist will make you very much a monk with the most important bits, while other classes generally don't hand out the most important class features as freely. This tends to be a problem only if you start at higher levels, though (Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, for example) - I don't really see anyone playing a fighter from level 1 to level 9 with the idea that "my build only comes online after half the campaign is done!"

(ranged fighter with a bow, monastic archery, stunning fist, flurry... Would be mean!)

I think the Monk class really showcases the strengths of the 2e system and how flexible different classes are - you can build a monk in so many interesting ways especially when using archetypes, and all of them are strong.

EDIT: Wanted to add that I feel probably the same way you do, but about swashbuckler class.
It's just horrible, you either go for finesse but your dmg lacks behind and the panache-finisher action economy is absolutely horrible, OR you go for a str and forgo finishers instead focusing on the flat dmg bonus, in which case you don't have the stats for skills... Ugh. Can't make a swash that works in a mechanically satisfying way.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Nefreet wrote:

Or if the Companion is the one who earns a Boon during the course of play.

Although I can't recall which Chronicle Boons the FAQ could be referring to.

Fairly sure there's a rule somewhere that any boons acquired by a companion, are transferred to the PC at the end of the scenario.

This may have been limited to just negative ones, but I think it applied to all boons. Not 100% sure though, probably in 1e guide at a point where it talks about negative conditions or companions.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Tech5bb wrote:
Seriously, the PFS special for end of Year 3 is tier 1-6? we are getting 1 scenario (so far) above level 8, what Golarion shattering problem is a level 6 going to solve while levels 7+ sit in limbo....
Quote:
However, the Aspis Consortium have also begun exploring the ruins, so it’s a race to see who can reach Raseri Kanton first!

... Doesn't sound like a Golarion shattering problem, which is good. The "save the world, every year, same time, same place!" was getting super dull.

Quote:
Ive got so many characters hovering around the 7-9 mark, are there any plans to support higher level play? im pretty sure that was a selling point when announcing PF2e? Guess it's back to running AP's

Cavern of the sundered Song is 9-12, the tomb between the worlds is up to level 8, secluded siege is up to level 8, #3-17: Dreams of a Dustbound Isle and #3-19: Mean Streets of Shadow Absalom* are level 5-8 and 7-10 respectively (from the blog where metaplot arcs are mentioned). I wouldn't be surprised if we got another during this year, but it's understandable that there will always be more low level content and less high level content, given how characters level up (and to prevent new players from getting excluded).

Also, weirdly, I don't think this is supposed to be "end of the year special". I think 2e moved away from that - the first special we got was "end of the year" (numbered 2-00), the next one we got was just a special with no ties to the metaplot (3-99). This one is numbered 3-98 and seems to be just a third part in a series of otherwise non-descript, non-metaplot scenarios. I really like this new direction because it dissipates the FOMO on the "start of the year special" and there's also no pressure to participate "just to see how the metaplot ended!" but it's still tied to (some of) the published scenarios instead of being completely independent (unlike 3-99). I really hope to see more of these going forward.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'd go with the archaeologist background and the architecture lore that comes with it - and if there ever comes a situation where you're exploring a site where archaeology would be appropriate but architecture is not, I'd explain the background to GM and ask if I can use the architecture lore because that's literally the lore given by the archaeologist background. Most GMs I know would probably agree.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The "NPC's die when they reach 0 hp" rule is there to simplify and expedite the gameplay. It's intent is to ensure that the GM doesn't have to spend time tracking dying enemies when it doesn't matter, and to ensure that PC's can freely cast 3 action heals without worrying about bringing a combatant back into the fight. It is not intended to serve as a way for GMs to screw over players by simply killing off NPCs the PCs clearly wish to save and keep alive.

Firstly, the guide is explicit - GM -must- warn players if they are about to earn infamy. There are no exceptions. This isn't a game of "GOTCHA!" where the Gm omits information (killing these is bad) just to later reveal that "HA! You got infamy!": No, the player must have made a conscious decision, knowing the consequences of their action, to earn that infamy. Gm probably should have warned the player that attacking lethally may kill the NPCs and result in infamy.
It's understandable that nobody foresaw the crit, though, so maybe the GM thought it wasn't relevant at that moment since the risk of immediate death didn't seem likely - personally, in that case I would have told the player that the NPC is in risk of dying from the crit, moved them to dying 2, and warned that if the players do not intervene, his death will cause infamy.

Secondly, the rules for dying say:

Quote:
Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out and are at risk of death. At the GM’s discretion, villains, powerful monsters, special NPCs, and enemies with special abilities that are likely to bring them back to the fight (like ferocity, regeneration, or healing magic) can use these rules as well.

These NPC's are significant and special, because their deaths have immediate, nearly-permanent effects on the characters careers, and thus using the dying rules for them is appropriate.

I do admit that this isn't super technical or binding - aside from the need to inform them about incoming infamy - A GM does not have to use the dying rules for NPCs, but this is a situation where it's strongly advised. OR; put another way, there's no reason not to use them. There's no reason for a GM to go "Ah, you clearly want and should save these NPCs. Too bad, I'll kill them off as soon as they hit 0."

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Darafern wrote:
Tomppa wrote:
If you have a character that uses shadow magic and likes to create areas of dimlight or darkness, clockwork goggles (from Gears gadget boon) is a relatively cheap way to help your allies deal with your magic - I bought a bunch of darkvision elixirs before these were available, but once those have been consumed by my allies, I'll be equipping them with the goggles to help them mitigate my cloak of shadows focus spell.
Why would you buy clockwork goggles instead of continuing to buy darkvision elixirs? The goggles are more expensive and have a shorter duration. They can be worn, but take one more action to activate than the elixirs and also require a free hand, so there's no benefit there either. Both are single use consumables as well.

The goggles are cheaper (3gp vs 6gp) and the difference in duration (1min vs 10min) does not make a difference (They'll last through the combat anyway) for the specific purpose of the Cloak of Shadows focus spell I mentioned (or any other low-light inducing effect). This comes with the assumption that you aren't swimming in gold, and thus you'll ask your allies to activate the goggles/drink the potion only when needed, and not prior to combat just in case they might use it.

If you're going to conjure up actual darkness, then yes, the potion is better - otherwise, equipping the few of your allies that don't have low light vision with the goggles in case you get ambushed by human bandits (or other non-lowlight vision enemies) so that you can effectively grant Blur (concealed) to the whole party with just 1 action is pretty sweet ^_^

At higher levels, the built-in see invisibility can be handy too.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There isn't an easy answer here.

On one hand, "The Intent is Clearly No" - per the book, just having the dwarven weapon familiarity isn't enough, you need access too - it should be obvious that the same holds true in revers: having just access isn't enough, you need the feat too. Otherwise that bit of rule could be better formatted to indicate that the feat has -no- relation to firearm weapons - after all, if you had access through firearms, why would you need the feat, and if you didn't need the feat, why does the text state that you need the firearm access even if you have the feat?

On the other hand, the way access is written here is explicit but clunky. Gunslingers have access to all firearms. Characters from Dongun Hold regardless of their ancestry, have access to all blackpowder firearms. Those are clear, explicit, access conditions that include the clan pistol.

As it currently stands, if a player shows up with a clan pistol (or a goblin or elven firearm) without having the relevant ancestry feat, I would allow it, because that's what the access says. However, I would warn them (or any player currently planning a build around this) that this appears more like an unintended loophole in the rules rather than the intended access, and this may very well change in the future, so they should probably build or plan around a different option, or be prepared to retrain when the hammer does come down.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Quote:
I can see either way being intended, though if characters from the Mwangi Expanse don't start with Mwangi, that recreates the problem that the book and previous clarification solved. Namely that a character could be from a location that has Common (Mwangi) and not speak Mwangi, which would be the equivalent to a character being from Taldor and not speaking Common (Taldane).

What? No, they still start with mwangi if they want to because they get to choose a free regional language, but if they were, say, an ex-cheliaxian colonist who never bothered to learn mwangi, they can instead choose another regional language to learn which fits their background better.

The new text does not recreate the problem - it merely expands the options: Mwangi characters no longer -have to- speak mwangi, just like varisian characters don't -have to- speak varisian - but both can choose to speak their regional language if they so wish. For free.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Quote:
What exactly does the boon do? You can either take the Baba Yaga patron (option a) and all the benefits associated with it, or reject it (option b) and get some of the benefits. Why would you reject it? Just RP?

For the boon, your witch takes the first option if they want that specific patron AND the lessons. If they want just the lessons but they want to take another patron, they can select the other option. The options are there just to highlight that you can have the lessons without being tied to that specific patron.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

I can see how the scenario went downhill, but yes, that seems a bit harsh from an outside point of view. From the PC's perspective, casting comprehend language is completely reasonable thing to do when faced with foreign people who they do not understand. From the NPC point of view, PC's casting spells seeming hostile is also reasonable.

However, I would have probably told the PC's that the NPCs seem extremely agitated at the spellcasting, and asked for a diplomacy check to calm them down/explain what they were doing, and then sewn that back onto the expected track of the adventure.

Likewise, when they knocked down the leader and asked him if he wanted to surrender, you could have asked for a diplo check then and there and get back on track. You might have asked if any of the PCs had their wayfinders out and described how they impress/calm down the npcs a bit (representing the +1 for diplo checks that the wayfinders give) and thus give a nudge to the players that these npcs might actually become -friendly- for pathfinders. Or you could have had the leader surrender (to buy time) for the additional troops that were hinted at to arrive (and thus give them time to actually get to the diplomacy checks).

It sounds like you played the npcs how one would assume they might act, but it also sounds like there were several opportunities where you could have gotten the PCs back on tracks by just asking for the diplomacy check when they were interacting with the npcs.

If you did tell them that killing the leader will result in infamy (remember that the GM -must- warn players if their actions are going to cause infamy) and they still killed them, then that's on them. The threat of infamy should have been enough of a hint to tell them that they are about to go wildly off tracks.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Per the new rule, it would appear that: All characters get Common. All characters get their ancestry languages (which may or may not include common, which is why the rules state everybody gets common - just to be safe). And then everybody also gets one regional language. It can be Mwangi if you want your mwangi dwarf to be able to speak their regional language, but it could also be something else.

So it seems that the characters who previously would have gained mwangi for free, now have the option to replace it with some other regional language if they want to - I don't believe these 'additional languages' stack, but rather the intent was to expand the options (and ensure that Tien characters can speak tien if they want to, and vudrani characters can speak vudrani, etc)

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Ferious Thune is correct. Learning a spell -would- give you access, but the campaign specific ruling is that you can not learn a spell without having access to it -first-. It would be highly difficult to track whether someone has a spell legally or not if they could just claim that they copied it from a random person in the previous game, without being able to show where that friend gained access to it.

Likewise, if you fight a wizard and recover their spellbook and it has uncommon spells in it, you can't learn those unless the adventure gives you access to the spells/scrolls/spellbook.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Agents of Edgewatch boon that gives you admonishing ray is really sweet because you get a non-lethal spell, And you get another uncommon spell as well.

One of the Grand Bazaar shops has a Fanged rune which allows you to turn into an animal when you stick your weapon into your mouth. Mechanically, it's practically speaking useless with lots of drawbacks and no benefits, but there are some funny things you can do with it [insert meme: Goose with a knife in it's beak, "peace was never an option"] and you can use it to circumvent the anadi "can't use a weapon while in spider form" limitation (by taking your humanoid shape, then activating the rune, and turning into a 'slightly different spider shape').

If you have a character that uses shadow magic and likes to create areas of dimlight or darkness, clockwork goggles (from Gears gadget boon) is a relatively cheap way to help your allies deal with your magic - I bought a bunch of darkvision elixirs before these were available, but once those have been consumed by my allies, I'll be equipping them with the goggles to help them mitigate my cloak of shadows focus spell.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

No.

Reason:

Quote:
In addition, select one skill feat whose prerequisite is being trained in one of the hireling’s selected skills. The hireling gains the benefits of that skill feat when attempting skill checks.

So, hireling only gains the benefits of that skill feat when attempting skill checks, so the effects of Hefty Hauler isn't constant on a hireling.

Presumably, this could help in certain situations where you are lifting heavy objects and the DC or bonus of your athletics check is dependant on how much bulk you can lift, in which case the extra +2 bulk might help.

Similarly, if you were normally encumbered but that +2 bulk would get you out of encumberance, it could affect how quickly you climb up a cliff or something - but that's pretty unlikely scenario, you probably don't want to build a character around being always encumbered with equipment.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a great item - mostly because of the nature of Pathfinder Society. Since the group you get assigned in will often be random, you can't count on someone else to take care of healing you. Thus, I think all characters should be at least self-sufficient enough to take care of their own wounds. This can be as little as trained in medicine + healer's kit, or the aeon stone, or lay on hands, or some scrolls or potions. All characters get a wayfinder for free after 2 scenarios, and 60gp is a cheap price in the long run, if it means you'll rarely, if ever, have to go into the next combat without full hp.

Also, it may save your life (or a heropoint) if the healing kicks in while you're in the dying state.

It's considerably less useful in consistent groups where one person has heavily invested into medicine feats, but usually it saves both IRL and In-Game time.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

If your players want to apply the chronicle sheets to new characters with no prior games reported, then there's no problems - you could date each game for when that particular book was completed.

However, if they want to give the sheets to characters that have already had games played during this time, it could create problems because of timing issues:

Character A had played:
Scenario 1, scenario 2, scenario 3, level up
Scenario 4, scenario 5, scenario 6, level up
Reporting the books on 'correct' dates could turn that into
scenario 1, Book 1 was finished, level up and +4 xp into level 2, scenario 2 and 3 now have wrong gold rewards (level 1 rewards when the character would be level 2) and so on. This isn't good!

In this case, it's best to report the games on the current date, so the example character would instead be:
Scenarios 1, 2, 3, level up, 4, 5, 6, level up, book 1, level up, book 2, level up, book 3, level up.

Remember, you're the GM - it's your game, you decide how to run it and when it's done. Maybe books 1 and 2 and 3 had loose ends that weren't resolved yet? Run a epilogue session for those to finish up the books! ;)

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

You can report it whenever you want - after all, you're the GM and the book isn't completed until you say it is ^_^

(I know some groups don't report the games between books, but rather, wait until they've completed the whole AP and then report it all at the same time)

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

As normal, if they list Dongun Hold as their access requirement, yes. From a quick glance, they all seem to have access as Dongun Hold or Alkenstar, so dwarves from those two places have access to them. Some of them have additional prerequisites, like a specific archetype or worshipping a deity or similar.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Unclear - On one hand, it's listed under rare and unique weapons chapter, on the other it's a sidebar with no rarity attached. FAQ/Character options page probably should have addressed this.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Davick wrote:
Not a false equivalence. And your declaration of such makes me hesitant to consider the rest of your post.

Okay, now you're just trolling. You seriously consider these two option equivalent:

You originally had access to just A.
"Hey, now you get to choose between A OR B"
and
"Hey, you get BOTH A AND B"?

If you fail to see a difference between increasing power directly by giving people -more- things without removing anything in exchange, and presenting people with new options with the cost of needing to trade something for them, I can't help you.

"I don't like being presented with facts so I'm not gonna read the rest of your post". XD

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RE: Is 80/160 good AcP amount and how did the campaign arrive at those?
The answer is probably in the Regional Support Program that existed in 1e: You got a boon for a race for running 12 games, and if you ran more, you got the option to give someone another copy (or, trade it for someone else who had a different race boon that you wanted).
That 12 games GM'd is roughly equivalent to the new 10 games GM'd for an uncommon boon. At the moment, GM's earn new ancestries roughly at the same rate as they used to in 1e (somewhat better, in fact). What's new is that now players can also enjoy new ancestries and things, but at a slower rate. If you want to get them faster, help your local lodge by running some of the games.

Donald wrote:
cavernshark wrote:


The main proponents of reduced cost in this thread keep talking about 'hours until unlock' but I think that's a misleading way to measure the commitment. This isn't a mobile game where we're tracking retention by hours played. We play sessions and stories. I like to take those hours and think about it in terms of levels / characters which is a better gauge of a player's experience in the hobbby.

So you concede getting ACP takes time? Then why is it not a valid way to measure commitment? Why does a player need to be committed to Pathfinder to play a Ixuri in the first place?

I've been playing RPGs on and off for close to forty years and Patherfinder for ten years. How's my experience in the hobby? Can I be trusted to know what I want to play character wise?

Getting AcP takes time, but it's rare that you 'grind AcP by spending time'. Rather, AcP is something that accumulates "naturally" as you engage in the stories and play with other people. You don't sign up for a game with the thought that "Oh, I gotta sit through another 4 hours RPG just to get another 4 points" - you sign up for the game because you want to play the game and enjoy the story. OR, if you don't like playing the game and if you don't enjoy the story, if you feel like the games are 'work' that you need to 'slog through' for some payment in the form of AcP, then the game probably isn't for you.

Well, why can't we start at whatever level we want with whatever equipment we want, why do we need to start at level 1 with just 15 gold? Why do I need to dedicate roughly 12 hours to playing my character before I can pick level 2 options for them? Why do we have limitations that only characters from Broken Lands have access to aldori dueling swords? Why are some archetypes locked behind AcP instead of being available for everyone? Why do you need to play a specific adventure to unlock a specific feat?
This question has been asked multiple times in this thread, and the answers are mostly within the lore of the world, and the need to reward GM's with -something-. I personally feel that the prices should be somewhat lower, especially for -gm's- (I don't think double the acp, especially for con games, is enough incentive).

(Unpopular opinion: I think it would be fine to cut player ACP in half - giving them 2 points for playing and GM 8 points for running, and dropping AcP costs to 60 and 120. That would make GMing more enticing. Do your part in keeping the society alive, and you get rewarded with shiny uncommon and rare options.)

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
More books will be more stuff. Do you oppose allowing new material in PFS?

False equivalency: New books bring New stuff. Just because paizo published gunslingers, it doesn't mean all my characters suddenly became proficient with guns and gained them for free. If I want to get guns, my characters need to trade away something else, be it class feats, their own class, home region to another, gold that would have been used for something else, and so on. The new books didn't suddenly grant all my characters double the amount of anything, they merely granted new options, while free archetype would directly grant all of my characters double the amount of class feats (half of which must be spent on the archetype(s)).

It is true that new stuff brings new combos and power creep is always a thing, but 2e math is very tightly balanced - way more strictly controlled than in 1e, so new options are much closer in power to the old ones than they used to be in 1e - the comparisons and discussion on the gunslinger and whether or not guns are worth it, is a good example.

Also, Rarely do new books bring out something that's so fundamental in function/power that it's a "must" for PCs and completely overrides all previous options, but sometimes we do get stuff like that - for example, in Secrets of magic we got the Retrieval Prism. In 1e, having spring-loaded wrist-sheaths was nearly mandatory because the boost to action economy when you really needed it, was just massive. In 2e, now that we have the retrieval prism, I'm probably going to buy one or two on each and every character I have. However, at 12gp per use it's not exactly free, you can only use one at a time and it's tied to a specific item, and it takes up your armor's talisman slot. In the last adventure I played, each use would have cost me roughly 10% of the gold we gained as reward - not that cheap for a quick one-use boost to action economy.

EDIT: I mean, if we had the option of trading away our general feats and ancestry feats and gain the free archetype variant for our character? I'm not saying that's completely balanced, but that would be a closer analogy to more books bringing more stuff - you trade away something to enjoy the new option. Likewise, if I could sacrifice, say, all of my general feats and every other skill feat to gain the ancestry paragon alternative rule, I would be all for it. It's about the difference between getting a sudden free boost to power, versus trading one thing for another.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I get that some people may be driven away by the obstacle of needing acp to play something specific, but I don't think that's a good argument, or as big of a problem as it's made to be.

The player that was driven away because they couldn't play a poppet from the get-go? The poppet wasn't even society legal a week ago, and the book was published just a few weeks ago. If we hadn't gotten the sanctioning document for the Grand Bazaar yet and didn't know poppet would be locked behind 160acp, would the player had played something else while waiting for sanctioning, or declined to play? If we didn't get a poppet -at all- in the grand bazaar, would the player had declined to play because the only concept they wanted to do is a doll/toy and 2e had no such options available? If nobody told them about the existence of the poppet, had they not played 2e at all?
Now that they can't play a poppet immediately and declined to play 2e, what will they do? Play 5e? That doesn't have a poppet either.

My point is, that these players are upset for not having -immediate- access to something that might as well not exist at all, so the argument that that's the reason why they don't play, is just rubbish. We make do with what's available, and we get rewarded with new options for engaging with the program and other players.

The uncommon and rare ancestries are weird, unusual, and as the name implies, rare or uncommon in the setting. However, they are still available to everyone, not necessarily just from the get-go, and not necessarily as your every character. Some things are always denied from the players, such as a GM not wanting to run a game of Gestalt characters, or not wanting to use ancestry paragon or free archetype rules. Some GM's might tell you that no, you can't be a drow because this campaign is set in the Kyonin and the elves would have put you to the sword. Some GM's may restrict you from playing evil options. Some GMs may restrict you from certain abilities because they are plot breaking or mechanically too powerful. Some GMs may require that you're all from the same area, and whatever additional restrictions they may set.

I would love to play a centaur in PFS2. I would gladly do it with the 3rd party rules. I can't do that because our GM, the organized play, haven't given me permission for this, so I'll settle for the next best thing which is a kobold and a Kayal.

We've seen ancestries become more common as the society interacts with them, and I really like that direction. It makes sense in-world, too. As we strengthen our relationships with the iruxi, we see more of them join the society. I suspect that the new metaplot may, depending on player actions, result in [spoilers] becoming discounted too, given that [spoilers].

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

4 people marked this as a favorite.
zeonsghost wrote:
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

Maybe it is me, but it defeats the concept of an ancestry being uncommon or rare if they are easily accessible or even accessible (respectively). If an ancestry only really exists in the Mwangi, why would there be a plethora of that ancestry Pathfinders?

I guess I'm weird with wanting a thematic and immersive setting.

I think "less restricted" doesn't mean "not uncommon". The society has lodges around the world and previously had PCs of 15 always available options at the end. Post reboot we have 8, and one of which is unique to Pathfinder (the Leshy). PFS is a marketing tool for the game. The ancestry system is a strong seller. Making more parts of that feature available for PFS is a good way to build interest.

Paizo dropped the best splat-book I've read in a decade and none of the ancestries are legal without 40 hours minimum of GMing. It's not like there's a lack of adventures set in and around the Mwangi. Not making one ancestry option out of there legal or easier to access is leaving money on the table for folks who just play PFS while keeping folks locked into a set of rote options.

It also contradicts the idea that the society is a global organization, which we saw with Kitsune, Nagaji, Tengu, and Wayang in 1e. I'm not sure how Ifrit or Kitsune is more immersion breaking in 2e than it was in 1e. Neither feel less thematically fitting than a party of illiterate pyromaniacs which we're all subject to dealing with.

Sure, 1e had more options as "always available", but 1e also had a 10 year campaign where various ancestries were opened up because of adventures the society did - Just like leshies got recently made available - and plenty of options that were -never- made available, at all.

I don't think this contradicts the idea that the society is a global organization, quite the opposite - All of the available ancestries are constantly available to each and every player. No ancestry so far has been made limited or restricted. None of them require you to attend a specific con to acquire the boon. In 1e, if you wanted to play a catfolk, you were pretty much out of luck. Wanted to play a goblin or a kobold? Even worse. (Until the very last year (or two?) when kobold became available through a con boon). 2e? You can literally play any of the published ancestries, and there's a clear path for how you can acquire them, and it's as simple as "play or GM".

Many people GM because they like GMing. Many people would GM even if they got no rewards - that's what regular, non-society GMs do. However, many people need that extra push, and if AcP got replaced, or the prices went -really low-, it would lessen the impact of that incentive to GM, and we would need some other new reward to give for our GMs.

For comparison, PFS1 had a Regional Support Program where if you GM'd 12 games, you could unlock one specific race, ONCE, for yourself, with a different race made available for each year. If that ancestry wasn't what you wanted, you needed to GM 24 games to gain the option to 'give' someone the ancestry you got, and then you got to try and trade it with someone for the ancestry you actually wanted. A lot more hassle and lot less certain. Now you can GM 10 games, and earn enough AcP to unlock -any- uncommon ancestry you want. If you GM 20 games, you can literally freely pick any ancestry, any at all, and you have it. Less games, no trading, not dependent on which ancestries have been released on boons and which are not and who wants to trade with you. Pick and choose.
Comparing these two systems, it's clear that the 2e version is vastly superior to the 1e version of timed and regional exclusivity.

Where this system fails, though, is encouraging people to GM at -conventions-. It used to be that GMing in a convention got you a boon that included one or more races. You might then be able to trade that for the race you actually wanted. Now? You get 2 extra acp (and your players get 1 extra acp) and that's just pitiful. I think convention rewards should be greatly increased - probably doubled or more - to pull in GM's. Make it 20 acp instead of 10 for GMing a scenario (while keeping the players at 5 acp for playing) in a con and it's "just 4 games GM'd and you get an uncommon ancestry".

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Looks awesome, although I must admit I facepalmed at the mention of FOUR coasters. You guys do know that adventures are usually written for a GM plus four players (For a total of 5 people around the table), and most campaigns have 5-6 players (for 6-7 people around the table)?
Why just 4?

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

Since kobolds have established a lengthy working relationship with the Pathfinder Society, would it be possible to add them to this Boon OR create a different one to reflect that?

Leshy and ~~Lizardfolk~~ Iruxi have already had their ACP costs eliminated and/or reduced significantly due to story developments, this would help reconcile the outlier that is our small scaly brethren.

Thank you very much for your time in advvance.

They don't need to be added to the boon - it would accomplish nothing. We already have access to kobolds, which means they are common, which means they can be selected with adopted ancestry.

Character options wrote:


Ancestries: Due to years of successful Pathfinder Society activities, all characters have access to the kobold ancestry (page 12).

Character options

Guide wrote:
Access: Players can access uncommon or rare options via access points built into the campaign. If you satisfy the access condition specified in that option, then that option is common for you.

Guide, on Player basics

Adopted Ancestry wrote:
Choose a common ancestry.

Same goes for leshies, they should be removed from the boon since we all now have access to them.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:

Seeing a lot of posts around the concept that free archetype makes stronger characters, and frankly, I've just not seen that. It seems like one of those things where the obvious outcome (more stuff = more power) just doesn't turn out to be true.

...

Just kinda feels like people are identifying a (potential) negative and completely failing to weigh it against the positive and instead discarding it.

Lol. More stuff = More power, plain and simple. That will -always- be true, especially in the case of free archetypes. It quite literally does not matter which archetype you pick as your free archetype, that character will -always- be more powerful than a character without free archetype.

Granted, sometimes that advantage will be laughably small (like in the case of Gladiator archetype - you get just 1 additional lore, and a small benefit if you're fighting in front of an audience) but sometimes it can be huge, for example in the case of my monk/Wizard:
I've spent all of my class feats from level 2+ to wizard dedication, picking basic spellcasting at 4, school spell at 6, and arcane breadth at 8. I have just one, a single monk feat from level 1: my style feat, and after spending level 3 general feat for adopted ancestry: Human and level 7 general feat on ancestral paragon to pick extra human ancestry feat for natural ambition to pick a 1st level monk feat to gain ki strike.
With free archetype, I could have also picked up stunning fist, Wholeness of body, stand still, and flurry of maneuvers, giving a substantial and direct boost to my combat performance. Or I could have used the free archetype to pick up rogue for more skills and damage increase from sneak attack.

All of my characters would greatly benefit from a free archetype, and a no-brainer option if you can't figure out a good combo would be to just pick the Blessed One archetype for every single one of your characters: Lay on Hands provides infinite off-combat healing, and can be used during combat if necessary. That frees up 2-5 skill feats from every character that would have otherwise taken the medicine feats.

Does the Free Archetype rule have cool applications? Absolutely. Does it effectively double the amount of class feats everyone has at their disposal? Yes. Does it need GM oversight? Yes. I would love free archetypes, and I'll definitely will be using that optional rule in my upcoming campaigns. Still, I don't think it belongs into the org play campaign.

That being said, I would much more enjoy seeing the ancestry paragon variant becoming part of the org play. Ancestry feats are just generally speaking awfully weak (though there are a few really strong ones too), and since they are often part of a feat 'chain', it feels limiting that you can become either a flying kobold or a fire-breathing kobold but you can't do both well. It would also make versatile heritages more appealing - currently, you're giving up your heritage AND your 1st level ancestry feat if you want to pick a feat from a versatile heritage (plus you get slightly better eyesight. Unless your base ancestry already had a darkvision in which case, tough luck) - and the tradeoff means that you basically get just your ability boosts and flaws and maybe, MAYBE one small quirk (like a beak or keen sight) from your ancestry, and the rest is gone because you wanted to be a tiefling with horns.

Not going to happen either, unfortunately.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Gritte Surrealu wrote:
Tommi Ketonen wrote:

2. Do you use a heropoint before you know the result of your roll or after?

A: After. This has been clarified by a Dev. 2e "rerolls" are all either: "Roll twice and take better" or "reroll after you know the result." There are no abilities which force you to "guess" if your roll succeeded or not to decide if you want to reroll or not.
Can you provide a link to the Dev stating hero point re-rolls require you to know the results first?

Sure!

Mark Seifter's discord channel + specific post
Quote:
"We removed all those annoying "Use it before the results are announced" effects because they give no benefit but can just be frustrating or much more powerful for those with metagame knowledge"

Which in turn was in reply to a link to this thread about hero points:

Do you need to choose to Hero Point Before or after knowing the result

Hero Points are also a fortune effect, which is referenced in this sidebar:rules on checks in CRB

Fortune and Misfortune Effects wrote:


Fortune and misfortune effects can alter how you roll your dice. These abilities might allow you to reroll a failed roll, force you to reroll a successful roll, allow you to roll twice and use the higher result, or force you to roll twice and use the lower result.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Nefreet wrote:
Tommi Ketonen wrote:

2. Do you use a heropoint before you know the result of your roll or after?

A: After. This has been clarified by a Dev. 2e "rerolls" are all either: "Roll twice and take better" or "reroll after you know the result." There are no abilities which force you to "guess" if your roll succeeded or not to decide if you want to reroll or not.

Minor correction: in 2E, you're stuck with the result of the reroll.

It's SFS where you get to choose which roll to use.

Which makes sense, because you only get one reroll in SFS (if you even have one at all).

What? I was describing two different kinds of abilities, ones that allow you to roll twice and take the better, and others that allow you to reroll after you know the result. There are several examples of abilities that allow you to roll twice and take the better, including true strike and diviner's sight focus spell. Granted, I should have probably said ' in 2e, abilities which allow for multiple rolls are all either:..." instead of using "rerolls" in quotes, since you need to activate those -before- you do the original roll. However, point stands - you no longer need to guess if your roll was good enough or not.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It certainly violates "run as written" LESS than giving out extra heropoints right before the fight. (No, it doesn't violate it as long as you don't actually change the boss statistics. Tactics do a lot.)

PFS isn't chess, and the goal of the GM isn't to "win" by killing all the PC's. Nothing forces you to make the boss attack the prone PC that already went to wounded 1 and was now healed to 5hp by a first level heal or potion. Nothing forces you to use optimal strategies like flanking or grabbing with minions. You can always spread damage out instead of focus firing one PC at a time. Often, starting spots aren't marked on the map (especially for additional monsters that come from scaling) - how you place them can greatly affect the difficulty of the combat. You could use spells and abilities against PC's that are weak to them, or vs PCs that are strong against them.
Yes, Run As Written - but that still gives you quite a bit of leeway on how the fights play out.

Table Variation wrote:


A goal of the Pathfinder Society program is to provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience at all tables. GMs should run Pathfinder Society adventures as written, which means:

No change to major plot points and interactions
No addition or subtraction to the number of monsters other than scaling directed by the scenario
No changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons.
No alteration of mechanics of player characters,
Nor banning of legal character options.

Beyond the above, GMs are encouraged to make choices which would result in the most enjoyable play experience for everyone at the table and that emphasize PCs are the heroes of the story.

Creature tactics are a common variable in how difficult a battle is going to be. Sometimes tactics are clearly spelled out, some times they aren't, and even when they are given, it is up to the GM to determine when PCs actions "invalidate a given tactic".

example from a repeatable scenario (1-10) boss fight:

The fight can be incredibly hard and can easily kill off PC's. However, the difficulty is greatly affected by the description of the fight in the adventure text: Text says the boss wants to drag someone to their lair. There's no "drag" action. If one GM thus ignores this part (it's not mechanically possible and not explicitly stated as a tactic) and goes to maul the PCs, the fight is very hard. If another GM uses the boss' special ability to keep tossing a pc towards the lair, the fight is much easier because the boss will waste actions on grab and move instead of striking more. If a third GM attempts to position the boss so that they can Shove PCs towards the lair, the fight becomes very easy due to wasted actions that deal no damage.

Another common example are animals and how they are run. Do you make them attack the nearest PC? The weakest PC? Gang up on one, or each enemy pics their own target? Go to the closest square, or circle farther to go for flanking? Or do you switch targets if the PC is tanky - has high AC/lots of HP but isn't dealing damage, to go after the healer/damage dealer? There's a lot a GM can do to affect the difficulty of a fight while still running the adventure as it was written.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Typical arguments about heropoints revolve around the following things:

1. A GM that is playing can give other players extra heropoints, one per glyph they have earned. Can a GM that is GMing also give the players extra heropoints for their glyphs?
A: It seems the consensus is "no", because they are the GM, not a player. On the other hand, they ARE the GM and are responsible for handing out heropoints, so nothing stops them from giving an extra or two for good roleplay and so on, so this is kinda inconsequential question.

2. Do you use a heropoint before you know the result of your roll or after?
A: After. This has been clarified by a Dev. 2e "rerolls" are all either: "Roll twice and take better" or "reroll after you know the result." There are no abilities which force you to "guess" if your roll succeeded or not to decide if you want to reroll or not.

3. How should a GM hand out heropoints?
A: The guide states that you should hand out 1 hero point approximately every 1 hour of gameplay after the first, and the CRB gives an example of handing out 3 hero points for a 4 hour session. However, sometimes the adventure gives you a suggestion or tells you when to give out a heropoint. This also isn't tied to a timer - your players can't just stop and sit around for a couple hours to "recharge heropoints", although many GM's like to set an alarm to remind them that a heropoint would be due.
Also, sometimes adventures are really quick, despite having lots of challenges - doesn't necessarily mean you should hand out 'less' heropoints just because your players completed the adventure in 3 hours instead of 4. Likewise, sometimes adventures are really long, despite having the normal amount of encounters and challenges - doesn't necessarily mean you should award them extra heropoints just because there's lots of RP.
And sometimes adventures take longer because they do have more challenges and encounters in them and that's why they run long - you should probably consider handing out an extra heropoint or two if this is the case.

Some GM's like to award all the heropoints (Or Extra Heropoints) at the end of the adventure, just before the boss battle, to make sure everyone has a HP to stabilise in case the fight goes south. I don't think that's the intention, especially if you have a 6-party group because then you're handing out double the amount of Heropoints that was intended - just play the boss slightly less lethally instead. However, barring a more strict rules for heropoints, they are ultimately a GM call.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This particular example - bravo's brews - is also misleading because those give just +1 or +2 to your will save. It doesn't make you immune, it doesn't trivialize the encounter. The bigger issue is that the combat is actually easier for a higher level party because they get more supplies - more bravo's brews, and more of the important scroll, which doesn't really make sense from a difficulty point of view, higher level should be more difficult than the lower level, not the other way around.

Also, if you're lower tier or if you have a full party, there aren't enough of these items for everyone, so prepared characters are still better off because they will have that bonus certainly, while some of the less prepared characters may get it from the potion and the rest do not. It's just that the scenario offers you a chance to boost your saves for 2-4 partymembers. Probably to make it less likely that the whole squad is crippled by effects. Likewise, when you do find a resist cold potion or similar during an adventure, rarely the adventure gives you enough for the whole party, except when you actually need it to go forward:
Like the water breathing potion. "How do we breath underwater" isn't supposed to be the challenge of the adventure - everything else is - so it makes sense to give the party waterbreathing potions to ensure they can take part in the adventure.

Sometimes adventures throw dangerous environments or enemies at you to test if you're prepared and if you can overcome the challenges. Sometimes the adventures use dangerous environments as the setting rather than the obstacle, or enemies that are slightly too challenging or risky for you, so the adventure either gives you a way to negate that environment partially or completely, and gives you tools to become slightly less vulnerable to that specific enemy or tactic to offset the overt danger.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Which weapon/Boon was this?

Asking mainly because I don't recall there being any ancestry related weapons that are given access to through a chronicle sheet.
There is one boon that is related to an ancestry weapon though:

Spoiler:
2-19 Enter the Pallid Peak

Note that the boon Does Not give you access to the related weapon - it merely gives you access to a thing that can only be used with a specific ancestry related weapon, and it states that "Society has arranged for crafters to affix a similar [thing] to your personal [specific ancestry weapon], if you have one..
(Emphasis is mine)
The chronicle sheet does not give access to the weapon in question either - it's not included in the items section.

So, yes- if the question is about this boon, you would need to gain access to that specific weapon either through unconventional weaponry, or adopted ancestry + that specific ancestry's weapon training feat.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Elfteiroh wrote:
Telerin Quenya wrote:
Is that a drow?
The one we see from behind with a dagger with "darkness" emanating from it, yes.

No, that is not a drow. That is

From the introduction scenario to year 3:

Kayal

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Please cancel my Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscription after the last part of Strength of Thousands has shipped in December. (Adventure Path #174: Shadows of the Ancients (Strength of Thousands 6 of 6))

I would have otherwise cancelled it per immediately, but I hate having incomplete sets, so...

Thank you for your stellar service so far.

-Tomppa

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In addition to the SoM having been sanctioned, there's now Avid Collector and Esoteric Spellcaster boons for SoM on the boon store, as well as an Avid Collector boon for the APG uncommon items And boons for Runelord and Shadowcaster archetypes.

I think it's also a significant news that regional weapon access' were added to the FAQ page:
https://paizo.com/pathfindersociety/faq#regional-item-access, which includes the following:
Region Items Granted
Vudra: katar, temple sword, urumi
Jinin, Minkai, Shokuro: kama, katana, naginata, nunchaku, sai, shuriken, tekko-kagi, wakizashi
Golden Road: kukri, khopesh
Impossible Lands: katar, kukri, temple sword, urumi
Mwangi Expanse: mambele
Saga Lands: bladed scarf

1 to 50 of 555 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>