Baby Chimera

Under A Bleeding Sun's page

1,138 posts. Alias of Worldbuilder.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Have room for one more cowboy all!


My only house rules are here: https://deadlands-the-flood-2.obsidianportal.com/wikis/main-page. And you may have more campaign knowledge than me:) I have played a few shorts in deadlands (2-4 session games) and read through the marshalls handbook, players guide, and the entire flood book, but thats it! If thats ok with you though get a hold of me on skype at underableedingsun. One of my other players is more knowledgeable than me anyway, so two can help keep me in check.


Still on the prowl comrades


Ok, still have 2 seats open. Can you get a hold of me on skype at underableedingsun and I'll get you set up? Right now we are looking at Monday or Tuesday at 7PM EST


The framework we are using already has card decks built in!


Awesome! That puts me up to 4ish (depending on scheduling issues, so probably 3 after that) so if you have anyone else out there you can invite them. At least 2 other cowboys have said Wednesday won't work, so we are probably leaning towards Monday or Tuesday anyway.

Map tools is easy to set up and I can help with that. Hit me up on Skype at Underableedingsun if you can.


Pinnacle’s flagship product is Deadlands, a horrific journey into the “Weird West.” Mysterious beings called the Reckoners have given life to monsters and magic, causing history to divert from July 4th, 1863 forward. The South has won its independence, California has shattered into a labyrinth of flooded sea-canyons, and a mysterious super-fuel called “ghost rock” has spawned as much war and strife as it has “steampunk” devices.

Players are steely-eyed gunfighters, card-slinging sorcerers called hucksters, mysterious shamans, savage braves, mad scientists, and more who battle against evil and attempt to prevent the “Reckoning”.

In ’68 the Great Quake shattered California from top to bottom, leaving a maze of windswept mesas and perilous sea channels brimming with precious ghost rock. The Rail Wars raged as Rail Barons fought to reach California’s riches first. Only one of them can lock up the Maze’s lucrative ghost rock trade, and first they have to go through Reverend Grimme and his fervent followers!

Hello Partner's! I have recently decided to move from PF/D&D for a while and switch gears for my next campaign. I have decided to run the Deadlands Plot Point Campaign The Flood! This is a great intro adventure to the weird west setting(basically the ROTRL's for Deadlands Setting), and should span roughly a year! I am looking for a few players to join the game. Game will be played Monday, Tuesday or Wednesdays at roughly 7PM EST (based on player availability). We will be playing the game on Map Tools .91 and using Dolby Axon for voice. My plan is to take the 1st Wednesday of Each month off, and play the other 3-4 Wednesdays in a month. I usually run for between 4-6 hours depending on flow and how everyone is doing.

I'm looking for players that can meet, once per week. I'd like to start the game by the end of February or so latest. Let me know if you are interested and we'll keep in touch.

Regards!


Rynjin wrote:

I don't see how it's power creep at all.

It basically just has the same effect as bringing in a new PC of X level, except with the same character.

You could get the same effect before by offing yourself and bringing in Bob, cousin of Rob.

This just applies a slight cost and a not insignificant period of time.

This. You know how many builds I look at and go "dang this would be awesome, if it didn't come online at level 7."

Or the fact that if someone dies and brings in a new PC at a higher level, minus potential wealth/XP issues(which may be none depending on GM rules), the new PC is almost always better than the guy who survived and has had to play his PC.

Also, it vastly helps martials more than casters, which is another plus IMO.

As a GM I not only encourage retraining, I let it be known that players should take full advantage of the system. The retraining system is actually probably my favorite thing from UC. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but my experience with it on both sides of the table is that it enhances the game.


I feel your pain. There are a few people I run for in PFS who have shadowdancers with Shadows. They can literally send them ahead and give them the "Kill everything until something can hurt you and then retreat command." There have been 2 7-11 scenarios where the shadow actually defeated the entire scenario except for the boss because not a single opponent can hurt it.

I'd say give all the giants magic weapons, but uhhh, that will mess up your WBL pretty awful I imagine. Unfortunately the "shadow" is one pain in the butt class feature. It can be dealt with, but like you said its a fine line between screwing the player and dealing with it. Especially when running published content.

justaworm wrote:
Quote:
If a shadow companion is destroyed, or the shadowdancer chooses to dismiss it, the shadowdancer must attempt a DC 15 Fortitude save. If the saving throw fails, the shadowdancer gains one permanent negative level. A successful saving throw avoids this negative level. A destroyed or dismissed shadow companion cannot be replaced for 30 days.
Its a bold move on the Shadowdancer. The giants should be able to go toe to toe with it for a bit, especially with an initial AoO. Death Ward and/or Ghost Touch, and the Shadow is toast, and in a fight combined with something that lowers their Fort save and there is a real threat for a permanent negative level.

It's not that big of a deal at this level. 1000 GP's (1280 if no one in the party has restoration) and the problem is solved. For the ability to clear large portions of dungeons with no threats or other resource expenditure by the party that is an tiny price to pay, you probably spend that in consumables anyway.

And thats only if he fails a fort save. Ironically martial classes tend to make the best shadowdancers, so the likely hood of failing the save is often very low indeed.


Remember ritual magic. You can make a ritual spell that may require a virgin. Ritual magic outside the spell system is common enough in PF anyway, there are some in PFS and AP's that do things spells can't do. Nothing wrong with making your own.


I disagree, he never mentions as a player. What he asks is:

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
You are a 20th-level neutral elf arcanist (Int 30 without magic items) with spellbook access to every spell Paizo has ever published for Pathfinder (including ones that are ordinarily restricted to members of other races, with the exception of paragon surge, which you don't have).

Not you are a player trying to optimize, you are the arcanist. He even mentions alignment. Assuming you can't mimic dead spells those would obviously change.

The spells are mostly general utility, with enough to maintain being the most powerful being, and battling some non-magical foes that may still need extra kick and/or protection.


LazarX wrote:
It's kind of a strawman scenario. Does anyone really HAVE as many as thirty spells they use at all?

Just to see I just went through my 11th level PFS wizard's memorized spell list. His normal prep list is exactly 30 spells. I imagine by 20th he'll be at least 40.

I'd pick mostly utility/world stuff I think if we only had 30 spells moving forward. I'd make sure I had enough power, but really it'd be about advancing the world. Most PF spells are centered on combat, but since one or two spells would make you the most powerful being in the world it'd be a waste (IMO) to waste a ton on those. Maybe one at each level.

9th: Greater Create Demiplane, Summon Monster 9, Shades (This may be cheating) or Wish
8th: Shadow Evocation Greater (Is this cheating?), Summon Monster 8, Polymorph Any Object
7th: Greater Teleport, Banishment, Planeshift
6th: Stone to Flesh, Move Earth, Contingency
5th: Wall of Stone (Great utility and combat spell), Unseen Crew, Major Creation, Fabricate
4th: Communal Tongues, Stone Shape,
3rd: Resist Energy Communal, Heroism, Haste, Water Breathing
2nd: Whispering Wind, Arcane Lock, Continual Flame, Alter Self, Ant Haul Communal
1st: Grease, Unseen Servant, Comprehend Languages, Identify, Floating disk.

I probably missed some good ones I may switch but thats a decently solid list.


I was just on a thread where people were flaming other's for their deviance from the rules, so I know what the OP is talking about.

Unless I run in Golarion(which I haven't done in 4 or 5 years now), I have house rules, and usually a fairly hefty amount of house rules. I have a pretty core group of players, but people leave once in a while, and I'm usually recruiting 1 or 2 new people per campaign.

I create an Obsidian Portal page for every game I run, and post my games house rules on there, which are often several pages. Sometimes, someone doesn't like some of the rules. In this last game someone who "joined" read the rules and didn't like them so left. I still ended up one player above my cap limit(only looking for one player but ended up with 2), and so far everyone is really enjoying it. It is a pretty far deviation away from "Core" PF. I don't get mad that guy left, the pool of players (for me anyway - online) is big enough I can fit in players who actually like my concept.

Now I do agree that sometimes(maybe even often) people do come on the boards and post issues that have a direct effect from their "House Rules" and don't post it up front. That is an issue but not because they had house rules, just because they weren't thinking or didn't know any better. Likewise, I tend to discuss PF from a "Core Rules" perspective, even with my players, unless specifically noted its for a game I'm running/in.

For Instance, I have a player who makes a ton of builds. He comes out and says combo XYZ is good. I say no and explain why. Then he says but I have this house rule in place which makes it good. I go "Oh, you weren't specific this was for my campaign, yup you're right. You already have a PC so I didn't know you were referring to my game." I have actually had this conversation multiple times with one of my players.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
What Does "I am running a Pathfinder game" Mean?
It means you are using the Pathfinder rules set. However much of it you may be using.

To me, its this! Now, I think if you throw in 3.5 rules, you are running 3.5 with PF revisions myself, and 3.5 is a totally different beast, so that's 3.5 to me. Otheriwse, its PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Of COURSE I would just "trust the players" if they were nosig and Jiggy and BNW and Majuba!

You can't trust BNW! He'll show up with Flutter and dominate oozes and monstrous beasts! Its awful AND hilarious!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I run for my regular PFS group and thats about it. I haven't run anything publicly for over a month now(wow its the end of October, nearly 2 months now), and may be completely over it. Way too much garbage to deal with for me, and I find its much less fun than it was even 6 months ago, and way less fun than a year ago. With the Season 6 issues and all the PF garbage being released I just don't think its worth it anymore.

Sad too, I really enjoyed PFS for many years, but I guess its inevitable eventually. I'm not even enjoying playing that much anymore. Get partnered with that guy who does 200 damage in a 40 foot radius dazing and stunning all enemies for 3 rounds, and he can do so 10 times a day has just ruined it. Unfortunately those builds are becoming the norm not the exception now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Honestly, I think after my current game I'm switching systems completely, maybe to Shadowrun, 5E or Gurps.
The naivete of this statement makes me giggle so. With the exception of 5E, you WILL be dealing with gnarliness and bloat.

Shadowrun 5th edition has one book out past the core line-up right now. And even when 4E was near its end, it felt less bloated than PF does now. More importantly, I can actually say I'm gonna run a core only game of Shadowrun, where in PF that's practically blasphemy (at least in the groups I've seen).

My point being was the actual time spent sorting through the bad has gotten to the point where its more time than my enjoyment running the game. See, I actually go through and allow and disallow options ahead of time. Its getting to the point of way too much time. ACG has been awful about it, as have several other books released over the last year. Then a player shows up with XYZ garbage which specifically wasn't disallowed(or perhaps was but was on the PFSRD or whatever) and it creates at the minimum an annoying time wasting situation.

When a game workload > the fun it becomes bloated. When the time learning the rules > time playing the game it becomes bloated. When the time looking up some obscure spell or ability > time spent on that players turn it becomes bloated. For me, its pretty much at that point. Unlike other game systems, PF (D&D in general) tends to make it very difficult to say no more is allowed as players tend to carry an entitlement to use all the shiny new things (IME). When I run Shadowrun, Fallout, System Shock or any other system, I have never ran into that problem.

And, personally I disagree with the quality of what they've put out recently, but thats just me. Everyone has their own opinion on quality obviously but it seems as if its really gone down hill over approximately the last year. I usually at least somewhat like everything they've put out, but the last 8-10 new books I've looked at have had a lot that didn't gird well with me.

And for the record, people wouldn't complain about bloat if they didn't care about the game. It often means the game is going in a direction where it becomes unwieldy or unmanageable for them, and they don't like that. I absolutely could, over a period of a year dedicating all my free time to it, go through and decide whats allowed and whats not. More often than not someone chooses to leave that system at that point, hence the frustration.

And for those of us in PFS, what rules we know and can't know isn't an option.


Playing in Reign of Winter, Starting book 2 today!

I only run homebrews though. Did run Carrion Crown several years back though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The ACG was so poorly executed, I'm likely done adding to my collection/allowing into my games, minus perhaps PF Unchained which I may want to at least look at.

I already feel the system is "bloated" myself. Honestly, I think after my current game I'm switching systems completely, maybe to Shadowrun, 5E or Gurps. Paizo's quality of work has really gone down hill the last year (some of my friends say 2, but I've only noticed about the last year, maybe 18 months) and brought the game away from where my enjoyment from the game > balancing all the crap they throw out.


Codanous wrote:

My favorite seasons were seasons 2 and 3. They lacked all the politics and dramatic world changing events, it was just fun adventuring and having to deal with the occasional betrayal and annoyance of the Shadow Lodge/Aspis.

I am happy to see that with this season scenarios are moving back towards just random, but fun, adventures.

If there has to be a meta-plot, I would like something that isn't world-threatening, looking at you Waking Rune or the Worldwound.

I personally agree with this. The one thing I like about the society is that you aren't some super good do gooders, your explorers, archaeologist and treasure hunters cataloging and basically "stealing" artifacts. I played most of Season 4, but tuned out about half way through Season 5(Honestly, I really don't know what happened in the world wound still). I'd really like to see the society kind of return to the internal power struggle and NOT be involved with oh my god this is the end of the world situations. It was alright for a Season, but thats what AP's are for (IMO obviously) and I vastly prefer the society Pre-Season 4.

If we do go deep into a metaplot, it doesn't have to be save the world, but could be something different all together. For these reasons I'd be highly against the Chelish Civil War or some other earth shattering thing. It's really not in alignment with the original goals of the society, at least as far as I can tell. Sure, we may help a friend here or there in the middle of the war(possibly to get information for ourselves), but as a plot I suspect it will turn into the monotony of Season 5.

I also have seen several somewhat "open ended" storylines before. Lets explore some of those. I believe there have been at least 2 or 3 doors locked and warded beyond this scenarios depth, a few hinted at artifacts, etc. Lets follow up on these. Oh, and rescue party pathfinders, that idea sounds fun too.

Of course, I may in a minority here, but just stating my opinion since it was asked for.

As far as cutting specific or unique rulesets, all for it. I find them to often be poorly written and take away from the gameplay of the entire table. I hate the chase system myself, and would like to see that cut as well. I just don't feel its set up very well in its present form, and WAY too often people come up with clever solutions and the GM goes "too bad"!

I also agree with "tags". I find it completely asinine that my hypothetical 5 charisma barbarian gets sent to a wedding over my also hypothetical same tier 20 charisma bard. I don't think knowing whats the basis of the adventure would be is bad, and it makes the society look like its not a bunch of hick losers when it comes to composing a party. Businesses do it all the time in real life. I bet it happens in Paizo all the time, you probably don't usually have editors make adventures and vice versa. It also allows the "snowflake" characters to know when you can bring them out to shine.

I'd like to see more multipart adventures too. I really tend to enjoy them (even when they don't all get on the same PC) and they usually have a nice depth to them.

For locations the Tapestry, Kar Maga(I fricking love this place), of course Absalom, perhaps even the orient again some. I also love(and simultaneously hate) unique/difficult environment, such as underwater, plane of air, zero gravity environment, etc. It adds unique challenges that are fun to deal with in small doses.


If you have access to secret chest that's a good option. Or a demiplane.


Fey Foundling is really the only feat worth taking IMO. The problem with a defensive build is the higher your ac goes the less enemies will attack you, and then your not really tanking, the party is just getting beat up. I've seen this happen so many times, the guy whose supposed to tank makes his build in such a way he's either a) not a big threat, so doesn't draw agro or b) is WAY too hard to hit and the enemies mob other people. Fey foundling lets you tank and gain extra healing, but takes very little away from others ability to hit you or your own offense.


Orthos wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Orthos wrote:
I could never do political intrigue games. I hate real-world politics too much, bringing that sort of thing into the game would make me unhappy as a player and is something I'd never consider as a GM. The closest I'd get would be a less-combat focused rendition of something like Curse of the Crimson Throne or Council of Thieves. More The Lies of Locke Lamora than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
And I love political intrigue games! Running one right now actually and my players really enjoy it.
Out of curiosity, are all of your players about in the same area of the political spectrum? One of the big reasons I could never run an intrigue game, outside my own dislike of politics, is that my group is all over the political line. Inevitably the campaign would breach that "no religion, no politics" unwritten rule that keeps our friendships from being ripped to shreds.

We don't really discuss politics, but based off some of the back and forth we've had over various somewhat related topics I would say probably. I do have another group I game with where things may get a little uglier since we have hardcore liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all in that group!


Aranna wrote:

I guess these two outlooks are more like "I e rules as an obstacle to doing cool things" crowd and the "I see rules as the solid foundation I can build cool stuff upon" crowd. And each group will find their own place and individual members will conform or probably leave if they really don't like the stance their group takes.

In my gaming group we have both types of GM'S and Players. For instance, we have one GM who has "the rule of cool," which is pretty much, if you describe something interesting or crazy and cinematically he'll pretty much let you at least try it. On the other hand we have a GM who is very tight and by the book, and pretty much everything must be accomplished within the confines of the rules and there's no deviation. Then we have people at multiple degrees in between the two extremes as well. It's funny but I've seen more than one philosophical debate on this pop up there.

Anyway, everyone manages to game tomorrow (though some people don't go to other people's games, and some GM's won't invite certain players) and have fun despite vastly different table styles. Is one right or wrong though? Probably not.

Orthos wrote:
I could never do political intrigue games. I hate real-world politics too much, bringing that sort of thing into the game would make me unhappy as a player and is something I'd never consider as a GM. The closest I'd get would be a less-combat focused rendition of something like Curse of the Crimson Throne or Council of Thieves. More The Lies of Locke Lamora than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

And I love political intrigue games! Running one right now actually and my players really enjoy it. So it takes all kinds, it's not one size fits all, or even one size fits all the time. I probably would never exclusively run political intrigue games, but I also don't exclusively run dungeon crawls or AP style adventures, though I enjoy all of them.


You have a party that wants to play an evil party of murder hobos. Not the kind of game I usually run (though not completely opposed). If that's what you want just go with it. If it's really upsetting to you you need to have a talk.

Also, as a first time gm I'd really recommend running published adventures. Even though I home brewed everything going when I started I think I did myself and my players a disservice. If this game falls apart see about rurunning them in a few modules, then move onto an AP. After that you'll be much more prepared for a freestyle game.

Edit: sorry didn't realize until after I posted we were in kingmaker.

I still stand by running some modules first, and THEN an ap, that's NOT skulls and shackles or king maker. I have a few friends that have run each and the degree of system mastery required for each of those is likely to be higher than any other AP you may run. Their sandbox structure makes them especially difficult, and your players sound like they may do better on the rails.


My top 3 would be:

1) Shaman Party
2) Summoner Party
3) Oracle Party

Other good ones would be: Cleric Party, Paladin Party, Bard Party and Druid Party.

Arcanist, Wizard or Witch parties would be amazing if you were starting at midish levels.


These are all by RAW. YMMV based on GM and Circumstantial modifiers he/she invokes.

Since your new, taking 10 means you are considered to roll a 10 on the dice, which cuts your ranks needed down by 9 if you want to guarantee success everytime. For instance, if you have 10 ranks in appraise, you can take 10 to hit 20. If you have 10 in Swim, and your in stormy water with a DC 20, you have to roll a D20 and add it to it, which means you have a 45% chance of failure.

Acrobatics: No Limit, Always Useful

Appraise: A DC 35 will let you find the most expensive item in a pile of loot (a huge pile) and tell if its magical. There is no DC higher than this. This seems extremely circumstantial though and DC 20 tells you the value of an item, and detect magic if its magical. Therefor, unless sneaking in and out of dragon hoards, +10 is the most you'd need, then just take 10 outside of combat. Most GM's never even use appraise (I do but I'm weird).

Bluff: No Limit, Always Useful.

Climb: Generally 1 rank(if a class skill) and forget it. For very specific campaigns (like if there is no magical flight, or you spend all your time underground and want better maneuverability) it may become more useful. The highest DC by raw is 35, but you can double your movement rate by taking a -5 on the check (so DC 40 really). Since this may be a skill you have to use in combat, if you can't take 10 it COULD go all the way to 39.

Craft: No limit, but if your gm uses RAW crafting rules your better off not crafting.

Diplomacy: No Limit, Always Useful. DC's can get very high depending on how much aid you need. If you can hit 50 you can make hostile sorcerers reveal state secrets though, so not bad!

Disabel Device: No Limit, Always Useful. I have seen DC's in the 50's, though by raw its really hard to get over 40 (50 if you are somehow deprived lockpicks).

Disguise: No Limit, Always Useful - Note though, only when its useful, which is a very small number of campaigns.

Escape Artist: No limit if its gonna be your get out of grapple card, or if you get tied up or locked up a lot. Otherwise, not all that useful.

Fly: By RAW it looks like the highest DC is 25, but you can take up to a 16 point penalty on it, boosting that to 41. Depending on how you get your fly speed you may get a bonus (like the Fly spell is good, so you have a +4 while using it). Since you often can't take 10 because of combat having a 40, while probably overkill, pretty much guarantees success. Failing fly checks tend to suck pretty badly.

Handle Animal: Pushing an animal is DC 25. You get a +4 if its for your animal companion, and probably can't take 10 when pushing him(due to combat). So a +20 for your Animal companion isn't ridiculous, but if you have most the tricks you only need to consistently hit DC 10. If you want to rear wild animals taking it higher is probably a good idea. HD is often much higher than CR. Most campaigns this is not really a factor though, but hey, yours may be an exception!

Heal: Highest DC is poison/disease DC. I believe the highest RAW DC's are right around 25-28. You can usually take 10 on this, so +15 can probably get you most the time.

Intimidate: No Limit, Always Useful, especially if using it to actually intimidate.

Knowledge's (Monster Lore): No Limit, Always Useful. More info is more better.

Knowledge's (Other): The highest DC I've ever seen by something published by Paizo was 45 or 50, but you can get most things with a 25 or 30, and can usually take 10 on these.

Linguistics: How many languages do you want? I believe people underestimate this skill because they say "theres always tongues." My problem with that is half the time the act of casting "tongues" initiates combat with those folks you just wanted to diplomacize with. I've seen this written in quite a few published materials where "if someone casts a spell the peaceful people who could help advance the plot attack," and its something I use as well in home games. If your forging stuff in an intrigue campaign you'd probably want high ranks, but overall not that useful.

Perception: Seriously, no limit. So good, all the time.

Perform: It only nets you tiny amounts of cash, but for bards no limit because of versatile performance.

Profession: Nearly worthless most the time, but occasionally something like Soldier or Sailor is really useful. Very campaign specific though, your GM should let you know if a profession will hold any real value (hopefully).

Ride: Riding bareback on an inappropriate mount the highest DC is 30. With only one of those its 25, and otherwise its 20. Often won't be able to take 10 on it. If you're using Mounted Combat, avoiding hits is good, so probably keep it maxed.

Sense Motive: Counter to bluff and intimidate to cause shaken. Can't be too high if your in the right campaign. If your GM loves dazzling display a good thing to keep maxed.

Sleight of Hand: Can never be too high, but it tends to be very dangerous and not particularly useful most the time (this coming from someone who has a few characters with this maxed.)

Spellcraft: Highest RAW DC is 29, which you'd be able to take 10 on. If using it for crafting there could be higher DC, probably a DC 40 could craft nearly any item, and you can take 10 on craft checks.

Stealth: If its useful, it worth keeping maxed. If a class skill and you aren't using it, its worth putting 1 rank in anyway.

Survival: Highest RAW DC is 41, but some classes (ninja at least) can increase the DC even higher. My experience is tracking is pretty rare though and there is usually an alternate way to find what your looking for. I guess it could be a big help if you have to get to person in X amount of time before they get executed or something.

Swim: Highest RAW DC is 20, and you can't take 10 on it.

UMD: Highest RAW DC is 35, but you can't take 10 on it.


I think a one level dip is great. Really outside of signature deed I don't think bolt ace (or even gunslinger) is worth taking past level 5, 7 for very specific builds. I think the dip will only help.


Expect table variation. You really need to speak with your gm personally, because this likely has a wide range of what may happen to you. Personally, i may consider this more on the law/chaos axis personally, I'd need to know more of your back story to be sure. Loosing control (whole generally nice and good) to someone that tortured you in grotesque ways for years may very simply be a snapping moment. But that's just me, a lot of gms will certainly see this as a good/Evil issue and how quickly they cause an alignment shift (if even ever) will vary as well.


Roll20 is very weak compared to map tools. You can literally make one macro that's roll all players perceptions, and it pulls stats right from their tokens. Also much much easier to organize. Having multiple macros on Roll20 is difficult to manage to say the least, where map tools it's easy to have 1000s (quite literally, I probably have 2-3k all together just for pf, which is only one game I run on it.)


Grey_Mage wrote:


I believe you'll slow down the table maintaining all this data (much of it is situational dueactualts, traits, ect...) Some classes have the option to use class abilities to augment these skills when needed (ex: investigator inspiration)

Depends. IRL that's a lot to track and roll and will grind the game. If he plays on a virtual table top it will actually speed up the game.

I pretty much only roll the following hidden: appraise, bluff, Sense motive, perception, Disable device, disguise.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Yep, just like I predicted.

Anyway, there's already 52 or more (admittedly mostly locked) threads about how players' ideas aren't important compared to the DM's. Let's allow this one to go back to the original topic.

I fail to see how already established game lore = players ideas aren't important.

If someone comes to me in a dark sun game and wants to play with a firearm, its totally anti thematic. It would disrupt the world for myself and the other players. Same with the summoner as it calls an Eidilon from the planes, which are cut off. (Note: 2nd ed lore here, as far as I can tell 4E murdered the setting so this may not be accurate with the current world.)

Now if I run in Golarion (which I rarely do) everything is pretty much open, but Golarion is a giant mashup of everything, not all campaign worlds are like that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Hama wrote:
Everyone's desires are important. But unreasonable things should not happen.

I agree, and I feel that sometimes it is absolutely unreasonable for the GM/DM to modify his or her campaign just to accommodate a single player.

I know others will disagree.

YMMV and all of that...

I tend to agree. If the GM spent the time making a campaign, which will take months or even years to do, and is going to take the time prepping every week, spending probably double the time than a player does at least, the player can make something that fits the setting.

As others have pointed out, if your more off the cuff that's one thing. But when I spend a year creating a homebrew, none of my players say "why can't I be a tiefling, who cares if the world has been cut off from the planes for 1000 years". They know there are the 16 races which already are reflected in the campaign world. Having to reconstruct 200 pages of lore to accommodate one player is asinine, and that player is being a serious jerk IMO.

I have dozens of pc ideas i can try, if ones not going to fly at one table just pick another one.


Jezred wrote:

Some more obscure than others...

Arcanum by Bard Games

Is this based on the video game? Because I'd totally play that.


He specifically calls it out there, you are correct, and that's a good thing. Not everyone who plays visits the boards though, and I still say the RAW reading is that the ability no longer functions. As has been brought up countless times before one Dev post in a big thread does not a FAQ make, and may even be wrong. I'm not saying this is that situation (fairly certain RAI is for it to work), but if someone called me for it in PFS I wouldn't have much to stand on based on a RAW argument. And I have had PFS gms tell me on several occasions "if it's not in a FAQ, it's not the rules." Often even if the obvious intent is written by the person who madethe class or feat.


Rynjin wrote:

Per the FAQ Deflect Arrows does not cause attacks to miss (and so abilities that are triggered on a miss, such as Snake Fang, do not proc).

But neither are they a hit. They are deflected.

The bullet wouldn't do ANYTHING to him, per RAW, RAI, or story. He would simply slap the bullet aside with no ill effects whatsoever.

That's how I see it as well.


Vivi+beast is the go to, for a good reason. It tears up the battlefield. Seen a few in action.

I really do like the Preservationist though. It adds some nice versatility, and extracts can be meh, especially for a bomber build.

But as a vivi-beast you'll have more than enough extracts you can use for self buffing, so thats going to be your superior route IMO.


BadBird wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
right up until to finesse a katana, the possibility of which had a lot of people squeeing.
Indeed, I could hear it from here - if you mean some combination of squealing and peeing. Don't get me wrong, I like the aesthetics of the Katana, but it sure has an iron grip on the imaginations of some people. As far as swords go scimitars are just as unique and interesting, and by the rules there's almost no reason to bother 'upgrading'.

PFS has ruined the scimitar for me. I ban dervish dance solely based on my annoyance with that weapon now. I have been in a 6 person party where 4 used scimitars. Never seen that with a katana (or any other weapon period). That alone is a great reason to not use the scimitar in my mind, don't be like everyone else.


I agree with thorin001. The faq did make this ability no longer function. I don't think that is the intent, but this is one of those FAQS that seemed to break a fair amount of different things. For a home game it's fine, but for something like PFS i could see a gm saying Mindchemist no longer works. I wouldn't as a pfs gm, but I'm more lenient than many.

Pretty much everyone I know bans pageant(including me, it doesn't even make sense thematically to me) so I don't really count that.

But bards have always been the skill monkey class. The only person that can be hurt is rogues, but they have much larger issues than crying over who bards out skill them.


Fallout. It is a free release from the early 2000s and use a d100 system. By far one of the best rpg's I've ever played. It would be nearly unplayable without a virtual table top because the math is brutal, but inside the proper framework it runs nearly flawlessly. The game I ran on it was probably in the top 3 campaigns I've ever ran (out of a lot).


Jaelithe wrote:
  • Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly
  • I roll stealth, perception, bluff, disguise and sense motive "hidden" (play on a VTT so guess that a screen). I role for all the players as well "hidden". If they see their role it will influence whether they believe their sense motive, or if they want to sneak through that cave knowing the dice had a 3 on it. Everything else is pretty much in the open.

    Jaelithe wrote:


    Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs

    I was guilty of this in my younger days. Now I don't promote "prominent" GMPC's. If they are there for story reason, their combat skills are lacking. If the party needs some help I make a buffer type character that contributes almost nothing to damage, debuffing, etc.

    Jaelithe wrote:
    Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters

    I have done this, and my current game has many many caster restrictions.

    Jaelithe wrote:
    Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion

    I am generally fast and loose with alignment. My current game has alignment completely reworked so it doesn't even exist. I find alignment often (though not always) detracts from the actual game.

    Jaelithe wrote:

    Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic

    I usually provide alternate codes for Paladins, as long as I'm not on Golarion in which case I use deity specific codes. I usually follow the greater good vs immediate good and law vs chaos thing, having the player choose where he falls on each.

    Jaelithe wrote:
    Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule

    I use the magical item Bazaar, so PC's can buy what they afford. I rarely drop the big 6 though, so they usually have to buy/sell for it. WBL is a component of level though. Sure, you can mess with it, just remember the PC's effectiveness is directly related to this (NPC's loose 1 CR for having NPC WBL for instance, while NPC's with PC wealth gain a CR). But its setting dependent too. I ran a darksun campaign (super low wealth) and by the end of the game the most wealth anyone player had was like 50k, at level 17, so I'm flexible.

    Jaelithe wrote:

    Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs

    Totally depends on the player and the setting.

    Jaelithe wrote:
    Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone

    Absolutely. I will also ban a class (Magus is banned forever to me) based on the fact I'm sick of it. WAY too many of them running around in PFS. If I'm running a no tech game, there aren't going to be gunslingers. If I'm running a Dark Sun campaign, summoners can't be a thing and clerics are nerfed bad.

    Jaelithe wrote:

    Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming

    I never really have a problem with metagaming. I could see it if your running an AP or something, but its never really come up for me, and the metagaming that does happen at my tables is more than acceptable to me.

    Jaelithe wrote:
    Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics

    I totally do this, and get bashed on the boards for it. I don't do this in PFS anymore though, but my games RP is required, particularly as I prefer running political/social type adventures.

    Jaelithe wrote:
    Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.

    I have not had this be an issue since I was a teenager, but sure I would.

    Jaelithe wrote:
    Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolons, etc.

    No. I have enough to deal with. I do run cohorts outside of combat though.

    I really don't see these as being "Old School" though, and several of these are rather new developments, to me anyway. I didn't start until the early 90's so don't have the XP some of you old timers have a better grasp than I do.


    Sound striker is broken right now, and it appears the FAQS will never be released.

    For Kefka I'd probably say an arcanist blaster now. After he rises you need some mythic tiers.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I have never heard of this, they should keep making saves vs being dazed each time the spell deals damage. Its great for summoners who can use lesser rods with wall of fire. However, I do have a friend that says the spell must inflict damage. By his reading, the fire from the wall would not inflict daze, as its actually damage from the heat put out from the wall. If they walked through it, then they would need to make the save for dazing. This reading also stops it from working with spells like Pit and Black Tentacles.

    Really though (even though I have a PC this affects) I with they would just ban Dazing. I would gladly turn in my dazing rod to get rid of it from play.


    claudekennilol wrote:

    Also, what Under a Bleeding Sun, said, too. If there's a way to not get secrets printed on the map that would be great, too. It's good for a GM to be able to see a map, it's better for the players to also get to see the map.

    p.s. I don't know what a VTT is so I'm just going to assume he's right and just nod silently and smile.

    Sorry, virtual table top (ie. online play usually). I know they can do this because everything pre 2013 (maybe even pre-2014) was made this way. The first AP I saw it in was ROW, and I don't remember seeing it in any Season 4 I prepped. It was really nice.

    Now if I don't want the players to see the A-B-C, traps and secret doors I have to photo shop it myself. I am way too busy to do that, so instead they just see the floor with the giant T on it, or know to take 20 in this room with the sides of the S coming out of the vision blocking.

    It IS actually nice for the world maps though.

    Edit: Alright, I lied. They started sometime in Season 3 (3-16 isn't superimposed but 3-25 is), so its been a few years already.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Swashbuckler (Especially inspired blade, but swashy in general) is probably going to be the dip of choice from here on out. I expect to see lots of these in PFS.

    That Verminous Hunter trick is cool and not something I was aware of. Fast heal 1 and fortification is pretty solid.

    I could see a one level investigator dip for a bard and bardic knowledge:) Not really necessary but hilarious.

    Slayer could be like Ranger dips for a combat feat. Probably free booter will still be more common.

    I suspect you may see arcanist dip wizard/sorcerer quite often. I keep meaning to look into it more, but it seems you can have a nearly full school or bloodline for one talent and a one level dip, which seems better than either archetype which grants the same.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    claudekennilol wrote:
    One thing: For scenarios that have unique maps, please figure out a way to provide full-sized maps. Whether that's an additional download in pdf format or whatever. But some maps look awesome when they're only 2"x3". When you blow them up and print them out they don't look awesome anymore.

    While we are on maps, one thing I forgot, and really this needs to go the entire design team, because they are doing it an AP's now too. Stop superimposing the letters/numbers, secret doors etc onto the maps. All the old stuff is over laid on top of a map, so you can easily drag and drop the map into a VTT. The last year or so you'll have gone to having the writing actually be on the map, which is terrible for VTT play, which is where a lot of us play, and several people exclusively get to play there.


    1) Hmmm. Drops to 4 it reads like. It doesn't say you can use Dex or any Caveat like that, so your using Dex. Is there a rule somewhere that you don't have to use a feat? I remember a dodge question one a couple months back and the ruling seemed to be you couldn't turn off dodge to become easier to be touched by an ally.

    2) This one is certainly a yes, you only have a +4.


    Michael Brock wrote:
    That may delay update of additional resources from the last week of the month to a week to 10 days later.

    Rough! Tell the Dev team to not drop so many spoilers then:) Seems like a good plan though, hopefully we can get rid of dazing spell then *crosses fingers*

    Michael Brock wrote:
    We have come up with some ideas that we think can bring factions back to the forefront so they regain a good bit of their flavor and importance in the campaign.

    Personally, I like them in the back role and really don't care about the factions or the faction system. I feel overall it contributes very little to the game, but I know others feel the exact opposite of me, so just throwing out my two cents. Perhaps more VC could be faction heads and send us on more "personal" missions. That will allow us to go out and immerse in the faction without taking anything away from the scenario or table as a whole, which is pretty much what factions do currently IMO, though the recent updates have lessened this greatly.

    Michael Brock wrote:
    We've come up with an idea that we think can address limited replay.

    This would be amazing, and I in no way shape or form see it destroying the game. I have been at several replay tables and (hopefully) have never spoiled anything, and I've only once or twice seen a player slip something, but you can always tell they didn't mean to.

    And on a more personal level, playing PFS has gotten very difficult. I have a very tight schedule, and those rare times I have a slot open now, well I'll be that everything being ran is something I've played, and nothing worth spending a precious golden replay credit on. Even online (where there may be 3 or 4 games at a time I can play) its getting harder and harder. Now obviously having a more limited schedule is partially the culprit, but I almost always have a potential slot or two a week, and pretty much never find a game then.

    Michael Brock wrote:
    The entire team is in agreement we need more play content for the awesome player base.

    Awesome, I like that, but really you all have been doing a great job sanctioning AP's and Mods! More content is more better though.

    Michael Brock wrote:
    John is going to start taking a very hard look in how best to help shorten scenarios just a touch so we can bring back play to the four hours they were always meant to be.

    Nice. I've played a few scenarios that I was thinking would be better served as a module (anyone from the Mwangi Expanse recently may know to what I refer) or be a two parter. I do like some of the more in depth storyline, but making it a mod or multi-parter would be appreciated.

    GM Lamplighter wrote:
    Here's what I heard*: New factions: Red Mantis.

    YES! YES! Thank you god! Please don't let this be one of those internet tro.....

    WHAT! It is. AH MAN!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rynjin wrote:
    I'm still waiting for a definition of wield myself.

    Its been like 4+ years.....we need to accept that ship has sailed. It would likely cause worse problems than this FAQ did regardless of what they choose. I think that one may be better left in ambiguous land and taken on a case by case basis, even in organized play (which I do participate in).

    I remember one thread I was in a while back and we found wield had been used at least 4 different ways:)


    ZanThrax wrote:
    Broken, as in didn't function? I don't think so. Broken, as in was considered overpowered?

    Broken isn't very well defined! Its like Wield, it can mean anything!


    Link to tiger/dragon fix please? I can never find anything in the FAQs

    1 to 50 of 1,138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>