Erdrinneir Vonnarc

Tsriel's page

Organized Play Member. 450 posts (542 including aliases). 2 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 36 Organized Play characters. 4 aliases.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dear Customer Service:

I write in regards to my experience with PaizoCon 2019 in that it was a very disappointing and infuriating experience in regards to scheduling accountability. To elaborate, I signed up for overnight events this year with the expectations they would be occurring. (It was also convenient as I didn't have to ruin my sleep schedule due to regularly working graveyard.) However, my experience has proven otherwise. Of the three overnight games I signed up for in advance (and was ticketed), none of them launched. I signed up for seven games in total over the course of the weekend. Therefore, nearly half of the convention didn't happen for me.

I could forgive a misfire happening once, but not three from a large publishing company behind the organization of their own event for each night (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). I drove several hours to attend this year along with paying for my own room and board at the DoubleTree Hotel where the convention was to be held. Save for a couple bright spots, my experience was utterly ruined and I seek recompense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With all due respect, who's Todd Morgan?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome, always a fan of a RL adventurer. A pleasure to get to know you a little, Tonya. Hopefully I get to see you at PaizoCon '16.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:

You mean... I've earned this one? Really? This star is not just a computer mistake? Because yes, I've GMed 4 modules. Along with a bunch of other scenarios. Am I officially allowed the happy dance?



Dance on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More stars for the...wait... Oh ****...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is retraining not an option here? I simply hate to see someone invest play credit on something and not enjoy it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As with all rerolls, I treat them as any other roll for an attack or skill check. I stick to the Taking 10 guidelines. If that means that someone still fails, so be it. ^_^

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Maxim Nikolaev wrote:
Yes, he has played after april 29th.

Was he simply not aware of the Blog?

If it's something like he showed up to a game, played as normal, then found out about the Blog, I'd let him retrain. Not everyone refreshes Paizo's website hourly.

Have him talk to your VC?

Max is a VC. For Moscow no less. So really it is his call. I agree with Nefreet here. Not every player will keep up with all the blogs and errata that goes up here. (I know I try my best to keep my local player base in the loop as best as I can.)

If we want to be all technical and rules lawyery, that ship did sail for that player. However, I'm of the mindset if that player didn't know about the change, then I wouldn't be opposed to cutting them some slack just this once with a caveat of encouragement that its their responsibility to keep an eye on for any changes and errata provided by Paizo.

Otherwise we're looking at gimping a 5th level character in some gold and mostly prestige for awhile.

EDIT: I just noticed something. You mentioned a rogue from the Core campaign. Note that Unchained material is not legal for Core play. You can do a retrain, but that makes the character unplayable for the Core campaign.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
crankybrown wrote:

Thanks and sorry for being such a newbie.

...and none of us here once were? *laughs*

Its fine, we're happy to help.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Woran wrote:
We've been making darkwing duck jokes all evening...

That gives me a great idea for a tengu.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had that item on a paladin not knowing that's where this particular "cursed item" is found. Yes, I paid for the atonement and I kept it. RP wise, I took a philosophy that its time spent hovering around my good-aligned aura would neutralize it. Of course, this also led to some interesting conflicts when NPCs used alignment detection abilities on me as I registered both good and evil.

That probably started more conflicts than I would've liked, but it was very enjoyable to contend with.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes I just pretend that there isn't a Pathfinder Society.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

TBH, I don't think that readied action is going to matter with Doubtful's stout punches. Speaking of...

Devonalia lets her arrow fly, attempting to take care to not shoot her dwarven companion. Unfortunately the sacrifice of accuracy for safety caused the arrow to miss its mark high.

Despite Ledt issuing his edict to surrender, Doubtful made sure that there wasn't any other choice with a solid punch to the mage's gut. The blow caused her to double over, momentarily taking her consciousness with it. She collapsed in a ball on the floor.


Click here for ending theme

With the bandits all slain save for one, the party eventually turns over their captive to the local guard. She'll spend a lifetime of service within a prison cell.

After returning to the Grand Lodge, Venture-Captain Ambrus Valsin thanks the PCs for carrying out his tasks, and assures you that not every mission for the Pathfinder Society involves running errands about Absalom. He dismisses the five of you with payment rendered in full for your tasks. The party leaves his office eager for that celebratory drink discussed earlier.

*fade to black*

Alright, so to succeed in this scenario, you, as a group, needed to complete three of the four assigned tasks. The task involving Auntie Gretchen was a little sketchy as some things were missed. However, that was right at the time the previous GM disappeared... Also, hard to think about what was going on for the mindset of the time. Anyway, doesn't really matter. You earned both prestige points. Huzzah!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The character concept that you find most exciting. No character can really "do it all". It's a team oriented game after all.

Once you pick your concept, get friends to help you build that concept.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
TOZ wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
By "maximize efficiency", I was trying to use a less inflammatory term than "game the system to get as many points/rewards as possible as fast as possible so I can win Pathfinder". The double/triple rewards that these scenarios provide encourages a certain segment of GMs to game the system, because it is technically legal (just like the recent aasmiar grandfathering race was technically legal).
And I find it a benefit to keep those kinds of GMs corralled in Emerald Spire/Thornkeep play away from the general populace.
This seems like a needlessly offensive dig at people.

Porky Pig might have something to say about that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
So I wonder who else saw this coming? And recently made a summoner? Like I did.....
I know of one, but he didn't make the cutoff.

I suspected something like this was coming. I powerleveled mine to level three just to be on the safe side. I probably won't play it very much though. I just like having something that isn't an option anymore. (What a weird hobby, I'm collecting characters... XD)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Myfly wrote:

Paizo should introduce besides bury and banish: destroy... You could get a much better effect, when you destroy the card (rip it apart) afterwards. Then increase the difficulty level ... And suddenly Paizo will sell more BASE SETS... Unexperienced PACG players then have to buy two or more base sets/adventure packs when they fail the adventure path :-)


For the love of all that is holy, ignore this man.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One mistake I made in 3.5 was using adamantine doors to discourage a rather aggressive group of players from bashing down the door that I didn't want them to go into.

Mage: So these are adamantine doors, right?

Me: Yeah.

Mage: Standard doors, nothing magical or mechanically wonky about them?

Me: No... (getting concerned)

Mage: Cool. Let's wait here a little bit so I can study and prepare the Shatter spell for the door hinges. We'll haul the doors off and be filthy rich.

Me: (mouth hanging open, dumbfounded)

*sad song for my oversight*

They took the doors. I learned two things from that. One, never use adamantine doors ever again. Two, never underestimate the versatility of a wizard's spellbook.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing with summoners an an optimized eidolon? Dominating it then watching said summoner quickly dismiss his eidolon in fear.

Easily one of my favorite moments of PFS GMing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Jessex wrote:
I hope, due to the scenario destroying effect of certain summoners, that all existing summoners are required to rebuild to the new version on the date that unchained becomes sanctioned for PFS. Yes, I know that will force people to buy a book they otherwise wouldn't or retire characters but I truly don't care. The PDF is only $10.
What are you going to do about all of the actual full casters who are quite capable of doing the same and more to most scenarios?

Like a diviner wizard that actually prepped a Scrying spell and used it at the start of the scenario, effectively skipping a third of the scenario. (That same wizard later turned a combat encounter into a one sided getaway chase scene, which was hilarious btw.) Or the Arcanist that did prepare Dazing Fireballs. Or the Thassilonian conjurationist that can crank out minions constantly...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Overall, a marked improvement from the previous renditions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I have not played a PFS game yet, but I read the boards here because I am always considering it.

For as often as I see you on these boards, I'm surprised. ^_^

Now as for potential issues, that's one that'll dig up alot of debate. I do have a recent example of a player that was banned locally in my area about a year ago. Let's call him Player X.

Player X was relatively new to Pathfinder and had just found our local lodge. He had a hardcopy of the Core Rulebook he always brought with him as it was the only book he owned. Player X also had a severe hygiene problem. It was very obvious. Many people complained about being near him much less having to sit next to him for 4-5 hours.

To complicate matters further, Player X needed to be reminded on multiple occasions on basic principles, such as how armor worked, movement rules, action economy, ect. At first, Player X was receptive. However as time went on, Player X became very combative towards his GMs and fellow players as to how the rules worked to a point where it was disruptive to gameplay.

After three months, it was decided as a lodge that Player X was too disruptive to allow seating him. In this situation, we had an individual who definitely had some social issues, however seem cognizant enough to be aware and capable of retaining information. How well exactly, I'm not sure as there were times many of us went "Where'd the heck did he get that idea?". It could've been possible that the Pathfinder ruleset was simply too complicated for Player X to grasp. We'll never know for sure. As for the hygiene issue, that's fixable. He had been informed on several occasions that it was an issue. However, nothing ever seemed to change about it.

I think my local lodge really tried its best to be as patient as possible with Player X, but it really just wasn't working out. I think the above example is a good case for banning a player locally. Other red flags that I think could qualify, taking actions (or not taking actions) that directly hinder or prohibit the group from achieving the group's objectives.

That comes with a caveat, however. Say for example, a sorcerer knows there's a bunch of invisible baddies lying in wait in a room thanks to an awesome Perception check. What that sorcerer doesn't know is that the hostages you are trying to save are also invisible and captive in the room. Sorcerer throws a fireball into the room, drawing out the baddies but inadvertently killing the hostages. The incident costs the table a prestige point. In this case, the player simply had no idea this was the case and did not have the means to detect otherwise. It was an honest mistake. Now, had that same player had the means to use See Invisibility and know the hostages were there, yet threw the fireball anyway, that could be construed as disruptive as that player made the whole table suffer for their actions.

Generally speaking, you're expected to work together as a team to solve problems. Actions that are blatantly hindering to the combined effort tend to fall under the golden rule of PFS.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
"There's a new player here, so the enemy isn't going to use the powerful attack that's her only chance of survival. Do you want to roll some dice, or shall we just skip the battle and say you won?"

There is a subtle line between pushing your players to their limits and killing them off entirely. Of the two, which is the most fun?

The obvious choice for anyone (I hope) is pushing to the limits. People tend to remember encounters and events more fondly if they thought they were going to die only to just somehow barely survive. It's thrilling, it's exciting, it's what makes being an adventurer an adventurer.

I won't deny that the above group definitely could've used medical support in this group, however, it's not always a requirement. I've been through and GMed countless PFS games where there wasn't medical support, but made it through nonetheless with solid tactics and solid preparation.

I get that players that are completely new to Pathfinder wouldn't be expected to know how to go about that. Still, someone could go about as a mentor.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm also a huge fan of your work. Paizo couldn't have picked a better artist to help visually represent their product.

No questions here, just wanted to say that. ^_^

1 person marked this as a favorite.

**munching on popcorn**

Whatever happened to "if it harms none, do what you will"?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately what I'm reading is a complaint about GMs being way too lethal for Tiers 1-3, where if a character dies, that's usually it. There's no bringing it back.

Accuse me of being soft, I don't care, but what I do realize as a GM and I quote:

CipsioN wrote:
I played at Gen Con 2012 and then didn’t play in this area again for 2 years because of the bad experience.

This happened at GenCon...GENCON!! The biggest (in my opinion) gaming convention in the US where Paizo and PFS is on the grand stage. It also means that you'll get alot of people who will be either or both relatively new or not as versed in ruleset mastery. Regardless, Tiers 1-3 shouldn't be so cutthroat that you're actively trying to kill players who are incapacitated when there are other threats the NPCs have to deal with.

Do I even need to get into the merits of how this kind of play will generally drive players away rather than retain them?

WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:

@CipsioN, you my friend need to speak to your local Venture Officer about the GMs. If the players in the area are all scared to play characters without buying these extra animals, then it's an issue that needs addressed by a VO. I'm sorry about your experience at the con, but if these things happen, report them right away to the people in charge of the PFS event. As someone with less than a quarter of the current scenarios left, I've NEVER needed something that isn't a class feature other than a pony. I've seen some player deaths, and am even responsible for some as a GM. I let my rolls happen in the open.

Nailed it...and I'm right there with you. I've killed low level characters with an unlucky crit against them. I dislike it when it happens and I'm always sympathetic towards the player but its realistic and fair. Of course, I'll ramp up the difficulty gradually once we get away from the knife's edge balance of survivability that typically is levels 1-3. I know players can usually take a few good hits before dropping plus there should be enough resources available to recover from permanent debilitation or death if need be.

Incidentally, how did that caster get up, move 10 ft, and still get a ray spell off on the same turn? Sounds like an illegal turn to me unless it was spread across two turns. That makes sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Counterspell Guidelines:
Paizo PRD wrote:


It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell's energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.

If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can't do either of these things.

To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.

Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.

Specific Exceptions: Some spells can counter other specific spells, often those with diametrically opposed effects.

Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can usually use dispel magic to counterspell another spell being cast without needing to identify the spell being cast. Dispel magic doesn't always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).

Concentration checks are not necessary to counterspell. The only time that concentration checks are necessary is when you either cast defensively or take damage while in the middle of casting a spell. This can occur if you're casting a spell that's longer than a full round action or if someone is able to identify a spell is being cast with a spellcraft check and has a readied action set to attack the spellcaster should a spell start being cast.

In PbP, using this tactic will likely slow down combat unless you work it out with your GM beforehand of your intent to use this tactic.

It sounds like you're a mage or a cleric of some sort. If you lack combat abilities, summon monster spells are always viable. If nothing else, it's another disposable target that will soak up damage.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As a paladin lover as well as a lover of philosophy, I find this...heartbreaking. With all due respect, if I was your local VO, I would be deeply disappointed in you.

Honestly, there's nothing I can add here that hasn't already been said in terms of why this viewpoint is too stringent that hasn't been said already.

My only wish is that you would at least consider some of the statements, both opinion and actual guidelines listed in PFSOP Guide in the future regarding paladins at the table.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...Mind legitimately blown over here.

Is this player there to troll or just simply doesn't know any better?

LazarX wrote:

There actually is a ruling that at some point the Society WILL retire a Pathfinder when they are at the point where they can no longer function due to crippling curses, ability drain, etc. In other words when they can no longer reasonably be expected to operate or survive on a mission.

A wizard who's an idiot and doesn't have the least in spell capacity and not even make up for it in skills essentially is someone who never would have passed his Confirmation.... never would have been commissioned as a field agent in the first place.

Lazar does make a good point, how the heck would that character, who claims to be a wizard, make it through their Confirmation without being able to cast spells?

For this player, regrettably, fails to comprehend that game mechanics won't always match up with conceptual ideas.

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Sounds like a great character in a home game, but PFS has a shared expectation, and the rest of the players' opinions matter, too. If they won't change, see the organizer and let them make the call, but I would side both with the majority of players *and* against the one who is trying to hijack a PFS game and turn it into a solo novel. Remember, book characters have an author looking out for them, PCs don't!
Grey_Mage wrote:
My guess he is attempting to channel the soul of Rincewind the Wizzard of Diskworld/Terry Pratchett fame.

To be fair though, this sounds like exactly something I would've done when I first discovered D&D. I'm inclined to err towards the argument that this player just doesn't know any better from lack of experience with the ruleset. However, if that's not the case then there needs to be a serious talk with this individual about player expectations regarding both ruleset and table etiquette standards.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's the question that comes to mind as I'm looking through the classes of this playtest. Personally, I thought Dreamscarred Press did a great job redesigning the original psionic classes from 3.5 and taking it a step further by expanding upon it, adding even more classes and options.

I just don't see the range and diversity I would've liked if Paizo ever did their own take on the topic. Still, there is a couple classes that do pique my interest for the purpose of playtesting, namely the Occultist and Psychic. Reminds me alot of Psychic Warrior and Psion respectively.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:

What may be hard for people to swallow is that False Focus is intended to allow someone to cast a spell without the material component required to make it function. Alchemical Power allows the introduction of an optional material component, that effectively changes a spell into something similar but slightly stronger.

Is the intention of False Focus to just allow the casting the basic form of a spell without the material component? Or when combined with Alchemical Power does it also allow the spell to be augmented for free?

As written, it's the latter. There's nothing in False Focus that indicates that it's only intended for a specific set of spells or spells unmodified by Alchemical Power.

Also, really looking at the table, there's nothing here that strikes me as so game breaking that it's going to cause a balance issue. Nor are the components so expensive here that someone is going to wind up with a massive excess of wealth. The most you get is a saving of 100gp per spell augmented by Alchemical Power, and that list is finite. Don't forget it takes a feat.

This. All of this. It's exactly my reasoning when I first looked at it. I'll mark this as a FAQ as well, but I'm inclined to allow it as written for any PFS tables I run until an errata says otherwise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

New FAQ on stat stacking

Happy dance


Doesn't bother me but I don't know if I would go around dancing for joy over it. Some might take that as rude.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, do not approve of the removal of both Tiefling and Aasimar. While I only have two aasimar to my arsenal of characters, I enjoyed having both as options. Options are what make the game fun. Definitely a step in the wrong direction, imo.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A ninja with 8 charisma... I suppose one could get by with that, but honestly there's alot of cool/useful abilities to get that use ki points. I'm going to assume that's a newbie mistake unless said player is looking to take a four level dip into monk to run ki off of Wisdom instead. That would make sense.

I kinda feel for the GM of this as it'll be problematic at points to try to maintain an adaptive game to the players. This might be a trainwreck in slow motion, maybe not. I don't think I could recommend any AP for this group though. Those things, by design, are tailored to a fairly well rounded group.

I think this group comp would be well suited for something like a war-based campaign. Run out, do your mission, run back to get patched up behind friendly lines, and put an interesting storyline around it to where they were a pivitol reason X side won the war.

I suppose no matter how I could spin it, there probably would be a casualty or two along the way. Keep us posted, would you? I'm curious to how this will work out.