Golem in Progress

coriolis's page

Organized Play Member. 110 posts (111 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.




1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Clerics have access to a chain of feats that provide a minor enchantment to their weapon and armor: Emblazon Armament (2), Emblazon Energy (8) and Emblazon Antimagic (12).

Emblazon Armament notes that "The item becomes a religious symbol of your deity and can be used as a divine focus while emblazoned, and it gains another benefit determined by the type of item. This benefit applies only to followers of the deity the symbol represents."

In other words, you don't have to emblazon your items personally; you could ask another priest of your deity to do it for you. How would you resolve that in Society play?

The closest thing I could think of would be to treat it as a Spellcasting Service, but these are uncommon, and I doubt such a specialized application would ever come up as a boon or item for an adventure, so that's effectively shutting that down as a possibility.


I'm currently converting an old 3.5 adventure with many NPCs, and the chapter on Building Encounters in the GMG has been invaluable -- in particular the "Class Road Maps" page.

At low levels, the suggested numbers line up with those from player characters. However, as you rise up in levels, things start to diverge and NPC numbers get inflated compared to PCs. For example, a 7th-level creature doing moderate damage is expected to do 2d8+8 damage, or any other combination with an average of 17. For a PC to match that, they would need to be a fighter or barbarian with a +1 striking weapon, a few buffs from spells, and probably a damaging property rune.

I understand the reason for this discrepancy -- NPCs are built for a single encounter, so all their abilities should have a direct impact on the PC party. Yet, I can't help but feel a certain twinge when putting arbitrarily large numbers for damage when statting up an NPC adversary.

So, I'd like to know how you handle this situation:
1) Follow the guidelines from the GMG -- Who cares if numbers are inflated? It'll just make for a memorable fight!
2) Follow the rules for PCs -- Internal consistency is paramount!


Background: I've been GMing since the late 80s, mostly D&D, but I stepped away from RPGs once 4th edition came around. I've returned as a player in a PF2E game at the beginning of the year. My character is a city guard on "detached duty", and I recently realized using manacles in combat is basically impossible -- it's explicitly listed as an exploration activity that takes 10-30 seconds, depending on the size of the target and the number of manacles you apply. To rectify this, I created the following item. Let me know what you think! Does it feel weak, balanced or strong?

---------------------------------------------------------
Manacles of Detention____Item 3+
[Magical] [Transmutation]

Usage worn on wrists; Bulk 1

Commonly used by law enforcement to quickly apprehend recalcitrant suspects, these polished steel manacles usually feature the coat of arms of the local authority on the bands.

Once the manacles are in place, they tighten whenever the prisoner moves. A two-legged creature with its legs bound takes a –20-foot circumstance penalty to its Speeds, and a two-handed creature with its wrists bound has to succeed at a DC 15 flat check any time it uses a manipulate action or else that action fails.

Activate [1-action] Interact; Frequency once per day; Requirements Your target is grabbed, restrained or unconscious; Effect The manacles bind two of the limbs of the target.

---------------------------------------------------------
Manacles of Detention____Item 3
Cost 50 gp

The manacles are simple quality (it requires three successful DC 22 Thievery checks to free a creature bound by the manacles).

---------------------------------------------------------
Manacles of Detention (Greater)____Item 6
Cost 210 gp

The manacles are average quality (it requires four successful DC 27 Thievery checks to free a creature bound by the manacles).

---------------------------------------------------------
Manacles of Detention (Major)____Item 12
Cost 1,800 gp

The manacles are good quality (it requires five successful DC 32 Thievery checks to free a creature bound by the manacles).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been re-watching my collection of classic wuxia/shaolin DVDs recently, which got me inspired to create a monk specialized in using exotic weapons, especially since Gods & Magic includes numerous additions to that category: bladed scarf, fighting fan, meteor hammer, naginata, nine-ring sword, tekko-kagi, urumi and war razor.

Once I opened my book, however, I realized that *none* of the weapons presented have the "monk" trait, despite their iconic status!

Do you think it was a deliberate choice from the designers, or a simple oversight?

Do you foresee any issue if I added the monk trait to these weapons as a house rule?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the things I noticed when I first picked up the Core Rulebook was that there was no basic list of creatures you could call with the various summon spells. So back in November, I used the very helpful creature search filters on Archives of Nethys to compile such a list. I submitted the resulting PDF to the Archives, but I never heard back from them, so I just kept it on my computer.

So, without further ado, I offer my work for any interested party (note that it includes yesterday's large update to the Archives): Summon Tables 2020-03.

FYI: For the future, I intend to follow closely the update schedule of the Archives.

Enjoy!


I noticed that the Expanded Domain Initiate feat does not give you a Focus Point to use your new domain spell.

That seems strange, since Domain Initiate gives you a Focus Point every time it is selected (that was one of the conclusions from this thread: Let's focus on... Focus Point pools).

Do you think this was a simple oversight, or was that a deliberate choice?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to explore and compare how the different classes are using Focus spells -- specifically how and when they add points to their pool --, so I went through the Core Rulebook to compile a list of abilities and feats that do that for every class. Here are the results (the "Refocus X" refer to feats that enable recovering multiple points with one Refocus activity):

BARD

Composition spells (1)
Lingering Composition (maestro muse 1)
Loremaster's Étude (enigma muse 2)
Inspire Heroics (maestro muse 8)
Soothing Ballad (14)
Fatal Aria (20)

"Refocus 2" (12)

----------------------------------------
CHAMPION

Devotion spells (1)
Litany Against Wrath (6)
Advanced Deity's Domain (8)
Litany Against Sloth (10)
Champion's Sacrifice (12)
Litany of Righteousness (14)

"Refocus 2" (10)

----------------------------------------
CLERIC

Domain Initiate (1)
Advanced Domain (8)

"Refocus 2" (12)
"Refocus 3" (18)

----------------------------------------
DRUID

Order spells (1)
Wind Caller (storm 8)
Impaling Briars (16)

"Refocus 2" (12)
"Refocus 3" (18)

----------------------------------------
MONK

Ki Rush / Ki Strike (1)
Wholeness of Body (4)
Abundant Step (6)
Ki Blast (6)
Wild Winds Initiate (8)
Wind Jump (10)
Quivering Palm (16)
Empty Body (18)

"Refocus 2" (12)
"Refocus 3" (18)

----------------------------------------
SORCERER

Bloodline spell (1)
Advanced Bloodline (6)
Greater Bloodline (10)

"Refocus 2" (12)
"Refocus 3" (18)

----------------------------------------
WIZARD

School spells (1)
Advanced School Spell (8)

"Refocus 2" (14)

----------------------------------------
By the way, I ignored feats which only give you more options in using your existing Focus pool (e.g. composition spells for bards or Domain Initiate for clerics).

Some interesting observations:
- Clerics and wizards can only reach 2 Focus Points in their pool. (Side note: Paradoxically, clerics get a "Refocus 3" feat, even though they need to multiclass to get that third point).
- Monks are clearly meant to be the Focus Point specialists, with more feats that give Focus Points than any other class.
- Champions are the only class that gets their "Refocus 2" feat at 10th level; most of the other classes get it at 12th.
- Wizards only get their "Refocus 2" feat at 14th level.


While at first it seems cool and thematic to have an alchemist character that can create smoke bombs, once you examine the feat more closely, all I see are drawbacks:

1) You can only use it with Quick Alchemy -- so you can't prepare them in advance to have a good supply.

2) It does nothing to extend the area of effect or the utility of your bombs (i.e. by applying poison, or as a first step to more powerful effects like cloudkill or incendiary cloud like it did in PF1) -- in fact, you're probably helping your target, because it's now concealed in a cloud of nondamaging smoke!

(I understand anything outside the cloud is also concealed from the target, which is the primary use of smoke bombs in history. However, this use is traditionally protrayed by throwing the smoke bomb at your own feet, and you would never do that with a PF2 smoke bomb, as the smoke effect can only be added to a standard, damaging bomb).

As of right now, do you think there is any compelling reason to pick that feat?


While looking at the skill feats at level 2, I noticed that ALL of them require you to be expert. However, I can't find any way to actually become expert by level 2, as skill increases for all classes are at level 3.

I might be missing something, but it seems weird to me to have feats with requirements no one can achieve when they become available.


I am looking for players to join me to complete the new Pathfinder Card Game Adventure Path “Wrath of the Righteous”. We would start in mid-June, and would meet once a week in downtown Montreal until we do all the scenarios for the 6 upcoming adventures.

I have no particular preference as to whether we would would use Organized Play rules or not. If that is something that interests you (because you are already part of the Pathfinder Society on the RPG side, for example), please mention it so we can decide as a group what we will do.

If you are interested, or have any questions, please reply to this thread on BoardGameGeek (https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/19200541#19200541).

-----------------------------------------------

Je suis à la recherche de joueurs qui veulent m’accompagner pour terminer la nouvelle série d’aventures (en anglais) du jeu de cartes Pathfinder «Wrath of the Righteous». Nos rencontres hebdomadaires débuteront à la mi-juin au centre-ville de Montréal, et se poursuivront jusqu’au dernier scénario de la sixième aventure.

Je n’ai pas de préférence quant au mode suivi («Organized Play» ou non). Si ce n’est pas le cas pour vous (par exemple, parce que vous participez déjà au volet «jeu de rôles» de la Pathfinder Society), veuillez le mentionner dans votre réponse pour que nous puissions décider collectivement.

Si ma proposition vous intéresses, ou si vous avez des questions, veuillez répondre à ce billet sur BoardGameGeek (https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/19200541#19200541).


The "Manipulator" role of Siwar has a unique evasion ability:

Quote:
If there is another character at your location, you may evade a bane; a random other character at your location encounters it instead.

What happens when the bane in question is a henchman in regards to requirements to close a location? Should Siwar fulfill those requirements because it is her turn, or should the character who defeated the henchman do it?

For expediency's sake, we opted for the latter in our game tonight, but we were wondering if that was correct.


A situation came up during our game tonight, and we wanted confirmation as to the proper interpretation on how to resolve it.

Vindictive Harpon states that "if you fail the check to defeat a monster", you replace the monster on top of the location where it came from.

Bloodbug states that "if it is undefeated, it gets displayed next to your deck", and slowly erodes it by forcing you to make a Constitution/Fortitude at the begninning of your turn or else bury a card.

The obvious question is: which effect will get priority?

After much discussion, we finally decided that the Harpoon triggers first because of its wording. The sequence would go like this:

- Roll the dice and add any relevant bonuses
- Tally the results
- Check to see if it meets or exceed the combat value of the monster. If the tally result is insufficient, then Harpoon triggers
- Undefeated effects trigger if the card is still

Any official confirmation for this would be appreciated!


We're having a lot of fun going through the Organized Play scenarios.

During our last game, one of my comrade-in-arms made a very pertinent suggestion: it would be very helpful if the scenario code was featured on the printed sheet -- somewhere in the header would seem to make sense.

So, for example, the header for Salvage Operations would appear as:
.

................................SALVAGE OPERATIONS................................
...........................................0-1E............................ .................


I am based in Montreal (Canada), but will be in Chicago (USA) next week to attend a professional conference. I've already lined up a game with an Organized Play group in the area so I can continue progressing through this Season of the Shackles.

It occurred to me today that I'll be one of the first cross-national Card Guild players, if not THE first. Is there any way to find out?


I'm participating in the Card Game Guild for Montreal (Canada), and I'll be traveling through Chicago the first week of November.

I'd like to play in the weekly scenario while I'm there, and I've been trying to reach the 4 PFS leaders by email and private mail for the past 2 weeks to find any Organized Play group, but no one has responded yet, which leads me to believe they are not involved anymore.

If anyone knows who is currently handling the PFS for Chicago, I'd appreciate if you could point me in the right direction.


What is the protocol for travelling players within the Organized Play program? Are we "locked in" with our home group, or can we show up with our character deck and Chronicle Sheet and participate in local game nights?

Incidentally, I'll be in the Chicago area the first week of November, and if travelling players are allowed, I would love to join a local group. :-)

(I've already sent emails and private messages about this to the Chicago Venture-Captain and some of the Venture-Lieutenants, but they haven't responded yet).


I'm playing Siwar the Bard in our Organized Play group, and as I was going through the spells in my class deck, I was surprised to find raise dead among them.

Dying isn't a very likely possibility in the PACG (especially in the later adventures when raise dead finally becomes available). Logically, instant death effects can't exist because the designers can't be certain a particular group will have access to the needed remedy. This leaves a gradual depletion of health as the only other cause of death, and that is easily solved by having access to healing effects, or simply letting time run out and starting over in a worst-case situation.

Since there is no penalty in failing a scenario, I am curious as to why raise dead was included in the Bard and Cleric Class Decks over more useful spells, especially given the limited number of spells available?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello!

I'm looking into starting a group for the new Organized Play program for the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game in Montreal (Quebec).

If you're interested, please reply to this BoardGameGeek thread (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/16657099#16657099), or send me a direct message at my Paizo address if you don't have a BoardGameGeek account.

-------------------------------------

Bonjour!

Je suis à la recherche de joueurs qui voudraient participer au programme «d'aventures coordonnées» (Organized Play) pour la version anglophone du jeu de cartes Pathfinder à Montréal.

Si vous êtes intéressés, vous n'avez qu'à répondre à la discussion suivante sur BoardGameGeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/16657099#16657099). Si vous n'avez pas de compte BoardGameGeek, envoyez-moi un message à mon adresse Paizo.


One thing I noticed as a player of Harsk with a Venomous Dagger and a Venomous Heavy Crossbow in his deck: the Stone Heads surprisingly don't share the Mental and Poison immunities commonly found in nonliving creatures (undead and construct). Is that correct?