delroland's page

I wonder if legendary weapon proficiency stacks with the bonus for wielding a weapon of legendary quality for a +6 to hit...

Not trying to be a Debbie Downer, but I'm concerned that if I buy the Playtest, it'll just end up being a waste of money when the actual 2E Core Rulebook comes out and I have to buy that as well. Are my concerns without warrant? Will the Playtest book receive errata to bring it in line with the finished Core Rulebook?

Posted in another thread but got no response, so I figured I'd try here.

I'm working on a kasatha ranger and am wondering if Treatmonk's "switch hitter" still works.

For anyone not familiar, the kasatha is a four-armed +dex/wis race.

I was considering multiweapon fighting at first level but was unsure how this would interact with the rest of the build.

My initial thought is to wield starknives in the off hands and switch from the greatsword to the composite bow as needed, as wielding anything larger would incur hefty penalties on attack rolls. During ranged combat, the character could throw starknives in addition to firing the bow, and in melee the starknives would complement the greatsword.

Any thoughts on this?

Looking for some advice from fellow DMs on lazy players.

What do you all do, or have you done, to mitigate or prevent players being lazy and not having their characters ready before session? I have players coming into a session and spending the first hour or three making, updating, or leveling their character. It happens a lot, sadly, for various reasons, but is worst when we start a new adventure, level up, or have a new character come in. last time we arrived at 4pm and didn't start play 'til 8:30, then ended at 10.

Two words: subpar pregens. If they're not ready to play at start time, have some pregen characters ready to go, like Waldo the Wonder Wizard or some such. Then make fun of them for the whole session.

One of two things will happen: they'll take the hint and be ready next time, or they'll quit. Win, win.

So I'm thinking about playing a kasatha ranger in Skull and Shackles. I've read Treatmonk's article on the "Switch Hitter" ranger and wanted to give it a whirl but was curious as to how having two extra arms would affect the build (and whether Multiweapon Fighting would make switch hitter, archer, or "two" weapon fighting more viable). In other words, is it better to go four melee weapons, two two-handers, a two-hander and a bow, two bows, or what?

Any thoughts?

Just a quick observation: in D&D3E they had the idea of "Virtual Feats" (aka the "Fu Rule" in L5R). Essentially this states that if you have an ability that mimics exactly the benefit of a feat or skill, that ability counted as said feat or skill for the purposes of meeting prerequisites for feats or prestige classes.

Assuming (since it is OGL-based) Pathfinder abides by this rule, the Versatile Performance ability would, in fact, allow a character to qualify as having skill ranks in, say, Diplomacy via this class ability without actually spending ranks on a "useless" skill.

On another note, the premise that bonuses and penalties should not apply to a skill mirrored with Versatile Performance fails to pass even the basest common sense scrutiny. If, for example, a character is particularly well-trained in conversation, i.e., he has Skill Focus (Diplomacy), would not that training still apply when the character uses the art of oration to deliver his message? Or if a dancer has a pair of boots of striding and springing, do they suddenly lose their ability to increase the dancer's jumping distances just because he grand jetés across the chasm? Or if that same dancer is clad in full plate, does that not at all hinder his ability to literally waltz past his enemies' weapons? Does a half-orc become somehow less intimidating simply because he's now emasculating you through "Your Mom" jokes? Are YOU going to tell him his jokes aren't funny?

None of these examples make sense, and so the game rule takes on an air of artificiality, ruining the suspension of disbelief. Also, contrary to the argument that allowing such bonuses to stack might "break" the game, the Skill Focus feat explicitly does not stack with itself, even if two versions of the feat theoretically would apply to the same roll.

In the names of playability and clarity, I highly recommend changing the text of Versatile Performer to read that the bard replaces the ranks and ability modifier (or perhaps just the ranks) of the linked skill with that of the associated Perform skill, and that all other bonuses (and penalties) stack normally.

Of all the issues discussed, this is the one I want to address the most. In the current system, if the party finds an item, they can use the item for the remainder of the scenario. At the end of the scenario, however, that item is automatically sold and the gold is split and the PCs then get their "loot" in gold to spend on whatever they like. Your assumption that at higher levels "authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them" is flawed because (1) all of the scenarios are developed by me, regardless of author, and I'll remove anything above-tier power-wise, and (2) because I have a complete system built out that tells me exactly at what level the gold being handed out should be by tier and sub-tier for the life of a Pathfinder Society character. Your example above simply will not happen. In fact, in most cases, I find that once development is over, the NPCs have either just the right amount of gear they're supposed to have, or have just under the right amount of gear they're supposed to have. In no instance have I...

Let's talk high-level, though. You give a bad guy a +8 weapon (worth 128,000gp). At the end of the adventure, the item is sold and the gold distributed. Bob the Fighter gets 12,800gp. If he wants the sword, he has to come up with 115,200gp. Does this mean he only gets one item every ten adventures? That doesn't seem terribly balanced to me.

Essentially, by giving characters only half the value of the items they find, you short-change them to the point of crippling them at higher levels. A 20th level character is supposed to be worth 768,000gp, but your system will barely get them half that once the character reaches that point.

Yes, I know there's a level cap, but the point remains the same: by forcing characters to purchase items with the gold they get from selling those items, you are giving them about half the treasure they should be receiving as well as waving items in front of their face that they in all likelihood would not be able to afford when they see those items.

I've read the campaign guide quite thoroughly, and I am intimately familiar with both the AR system and the cert system that came prior. My concerns are a result of those observations, and not, as has been inferred, contrary to them.

I understand many of you are comfortable with the AR system, but just because something is familiar does not mean it is automatically conducive to good play. Before you automatically dismiss what I have to say out of hand, I would suggest you take a step back and consider what might be done not only to improve play, but to create a friendlier environment more likely to attract and keep new players.

My background: I've played in the RPGA for over ten years, stretching across three editions of D&D.

In PFS I see many of the same failures that led to the significant decline in RPGA participation, but perhaps moreso than any other issue, I find the full-page adventure log to be the largest offender. Rather than have four hours to play in a four hour session, we are forced to give up thirty minutes of time to do arbitrary paperwork, wasting hundreds of sheets of paper per convention and cluttering character folders all in the name of "protecting" us from the cheaters.

In my experience with RPGA, I have found that, no matter what precautions the campaign might take, if people want to cheat, they will. No DM is going to demand to check the character logs of every single player that sits down at their table, as not only would it generally be a tremendous waste of play time, but also it would be quite insulting to the players involved. Considering the insignificant portion of the player base that resorts to cheating and also the utter failure of the log sheet system to prevent that insignificant percentage from cheating, I suggest we eliminate the log sheet system entirely.

The second major issue I have is with the way treasure is handled (another holdover from Living Greyhawk I might add). In the current model, if the party finds a particular item, they can't just take that item; instead, they have to sell that item for half its value, then purchase the item with their own coin. This leads to situations, especially at higher levels, where authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them. Again, the premise here is "protection" of players from the greed of other players, as well as to prevent characters from becoming overly powerful from acquiring too many magic items. Instead, such a system leads to adventures that become increasingly unfair at higher levels, with enemies carrying entire arsenals of magic equipment and characters who are too poor to afford more than a few low level items and barely enough coin for the material component of the almost guaranteed to be eventually needed raise dead.

Oftentimes I've heard campaign staff reply that, due to the vastness of scope, living campaigns can not be run like standard campaigns. Now, while I somewhat agree with this sentiment, I do not agree with the methods you've chosen to implement. Every player is fully capable of tracking their own gains of treasure and experience; they do not need the PFS staff to hold their hand in this matter. Don't punish the vast majority of honest players by making them jump through hoops that the dishonest players can already easily circumvent. And if you are concerned characters might get too many magic items, tell your authors to stop giving those items willy-nilly to NPC's.

Frankly, to me, it comes down to an issue of trust, and the current system to me illustrates the lack of trust the campaign staff has for its players. The vast majority of us are grown up enough to be civil and fair with our fellow player, without resulting to cheating or bullying others to get a particular magic item. If you'd just let us show you, I think you'll find a much happier and much more devoted player base. And if the miniscule population of players that are dishonest want to cheat, let them. Neither you nor I can stop them, but eventually they will simply wake up one day to find that no one else wants to play with them.

Anyways, that's my two cents, and I hope someone in charge takes my words to heart. At times, the RPGA has provided me with some of the most memorable fun I've had, and I hope eventually PFS can do the same.