kantoboy's page

Personally, I think GMs run modules better when they've run it at least one other time. I find it odd that the PFS system doesn't encourage that. Maybe a simple max 3 chronicle sheets per scenario applied to different characters would do.

Wish there was a place where I comment about GM rewards. Anyway I feel strongly about this so I'll go ahead and post it here. I honestly think the way PFS is currently structured, it discourages one to be GM.

One thing I know about GMs:

It takes a lot of preparation. A prepared GM, makes the session run smoothly, and generally gives players a more enjoyable experience.

They tend to buy a lot of books, more than the average PFS player. At least in my experience, the folks with largest bags filled with stuff, who buy minis, and love the game, tend to be GMs.

Consistent presence of GMs in a store, brings visibility to Paizo products and therefore should increase sales.

For most GMs, running a scenario more than once makes it more enjoyable for everyone involved. In my experience (perhaps because I am a novice), after one or two sessions, a GM will be able to get the scenario and can react better to odd ball decisions by players not covered by writer.

PFS does two things that annoys me greatly.

1.It discourages GMs to repeat scenarios. Really 1 credit? Does it matter? Is it really bad for GMs to quickly build up their characters? For every game they run, 4 - 6 PFS players have a good time, and can advance their character. Is Paizo being cheap, and they want to push sales of their scenarios? I would think that those 5 happy players, will more than make up for the 4$ sale by buying paizo stuff.

2.It becomes expensive for GM to collect enough scenarios so he doesn't run out of stuff to play given he has no control of who joins the table. A GM with a limited inventory of scenarios, will most likely encounter someone who has played the ones he has. So he either turns the player away, or is forced to buy and play something he was totally unprepared for. I've been enough games to know, most of the time, this isn't fun for everyone involved.

I think GMs are important enough to PFS, that they should be better supported.

I think the first annoyance, can be solved easily enough: let GMs get credit no matter how many times they play a scenario. Perhaps limiting it so that a single character can only gain the chronicle sheet just once.

I can't think of a straightforward solution to the second (save giving away scenarios for free). But maybe someone else could think of something.

Are minor deities legal for PFS play? When I check the Faiths of Purity section in the additional resources, it appears that only the traits are legal for PFS play, which is a little confusing.

Also are there rules for switching deities?

Clint Blome wrote:

For some reason the local folks here see Warhorn as the devil. I don't really get it *shrug*

It's the fresh login every time, for every event. I know there are reasons for it, but I still despise that aspect of Warhorn's design. Combined with the 4E centricism of its reservation system, all of which has lead us to not use it here for local PFS.

We've opted instead for our own reservation list off of our own webpage; using a widget for Wordpress. It's not perfect, but I mostly prefer it.

That said, I know that there are a LOT of GMs elsewhere who do use Warhorm to manage bookings for their events and this change will be well appreciated by all of those GMs and players -- so that's A Good Thing™.

honestly it takes awhile to get used to. It took me several minutes to figure out where the register button is.

well this isn't that other game where x item goes into x slot. So even if you find a GM that lets you re-skin, there will be others (a lot of them) who will view this very dimly. So save your gold, and try to stick as closely to RAW as possible.

kantoboy wrote:

Tinkering with a cleric build. Mostly healing support with some ranged attacks in it (archery).

I'm thinking of dipping into some monk levels for the zen archer archetype. Thoughts?

Ask your DM to make your life easier and let you use the Zen Archery feat from 3.5's Complete Warrior. :)

Lots of good advice here. I need to look at the guided hand build. I'll probably make something less extreme though, that 7 intelligence build is kinda hard to RP. :D

And for the player - see above. If you run into a GM who dislikes you riding up or down the stairs - just dismount. It's not worth a lengthy discussion.

Who said there was? I just used it as an example of movement rulings I had to accept, despite the fact that similar sized PCs apparently had little to no difficulty in that same terrain.

I've been an RP long enough to know that there is enough drama and excitement in PFS scenarios, there is no need to add it on the table. If I wanted to argue, I'd spend my time in the 4th edition forums. ;)

Just when I thought I've seen everything here is Whiplash!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3-qx08ZJ6c

There is even a small portion of the brave dog rider climbing stairs. Now all I need is to convince his handler to change from a cowboy to knight in shining armor theme. Alas, I don't think there is as much money in renaissance fairs as there are in rodeos.

Steep stairs impossible for 4 legged mounts with hooves? How about climbing UP & DOWN steep stairs AND walking a tight rope with a small rider?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffJRNle1lAU

Dude . . . this stuff is hilarious.

In any event, lets look at the big picture. Ok so you get your mount up the stairs in some tower, dungeon what have you. Now you get to engage the boss in mounted combat, which it probably wasnt designed for, but hey you win. Congradulations you found the loop hole and exploited it. If that is the kind of game you want then I guess keep doing what your doing, apparently most of the community will support you.

I would recommend you GM a game with a medium mount on halfling cav, in a typical PFS game. Between furniture, rubble (you know the legit kind that affects all pcs), allies in the way (you know the guy who just dropped in and doesn't really want to cooperate with the rest of the team), weak will saves for both the mount and the cav, most end bosses seem to do just fine. I've seen barbarians, fighters, and two handed weapon paladins do FAR MORE damage 2 to 3 levels below the small cav. If I wanted to do damage, there are FAR easier builds to go for. There just isn't any room for most cavs to work effectively anyway, without GMs throwing unexpected ride checks with hard DCs. Most encounters I face now, have high enough DR, that without a charge, cav is doing no damage.

Sure once in a while there is usually a ranged lackey on the outskirts that gets skewered, but I've yet to face one big end boss that just folded up the way you seem to be so worried about. There have been more than a few times, where the mount failed to a low level "cause fear", and bolted the room, taking my brave halfling along with it. I thought that was hilarious, and I'm sure everyone in the party had a good laugh too. Especially as the now dismounted halfling had to hoof it back the battle at such a low speed.

Look I'm not even sure why this discussion seemed to explode on stairs. I nearly laughed out loud when my GM told me that, and let it slide. I'm definitely not advocating having them reprimanded by the powers that be. Honestly, I've yet to meet one who was as openly contemptuous of the archetype, and the players who enjoy them, as the ones here. Certainly was an eye opener.

One thing I did notice though, which in my opinion is very telling, no one was calling about lowering the damage output of small cav. The most vocal were those who kept saying "well the dog/cat/mount x, should be clumsy in an underground environment, because horses are. So suck it up as its more realistic." :D

Apparently the adage seeing is believing is clearly overrated. I have also learned that Youtube evidence is very easily dismissed as inconvenient aberrations of nature for those advocating "realism" in heroic PFS fantasy.

Also what system are you using for your stats?

20 pt buy. Thinking of going human:

STR 12,
Dex 16,
CON 10,
Int 10
Wis 16,
Cha 13,

Just because you pick a narrow focus doesn't mean adventures need to be reconsidered they way you want them to be in order to accomodate your narrow focus.

Actually I feel the opposite. There are GMs who have a narrow view on how mounts should behave and warp PUBLISHED adventures to accommodate their perception on how the 'realism' should work.

This corridor is wide enough for a hulking half orc to barrel through, but hmmm. . . your dog . . . ride check, with penalties because I know your cav got pretty good ride skill. You know this treacherous cavern, sure I'd let the armored two legged dex 10 fighter charge through. But you're cat? No way. Its difficult terrain, no charges. Its just more realistic. Animals can't navigate through dusty, with loose floors boards as much as booted feet can. Wait you mean your halfling and gear + dog / cat / snake weigh less than that armored figher? Hmm...well I'm the DM, I like my armored fighters charging through loose boards. I am adding this obstacles despite that fact that NOTHING in the published adventure specifies this. I mean there are no arena like spaces in this map, so I guess the writer specifically does not like cats or dogs roaming around, and intends that they trip and fall every other round.

What I'm against is chosing a small size PC/med size mount as an attempt to get around that. It's legal, sure. IMO it's also cheesy, and I don't believe I'm alone in the opinion, based on your experiences with GMs ;)

And that's what I am pointing out, GMs feeling justified in warping published scenarios in organized play to punish perfectly legal mounts. And as you can also see, I am not alone in being baffled by all the hate.

I think this is the disconnect. What some are calling 'enforcing realism', others are calling 'making up stuff'.

But where is the realism in large dogs or cats being clumsy indoors? Or not being able to climb stairs? If the rules say a suitable sized animal is fair game as a mount, it should be taken RAW. It is frustrating when GMs start adding penalties specifically to mounts that they would not apply to similarly sized pcs. There is no realism in a ruling that says two legs are better In rough terrain than four. There is a reason land based predators at the top of the food chain have four legs.

I can tell you, there is nothing more unfun than a gm saying "well I find this character archetype irrational. Even if it is legal and reasonably balanced and there is no mass outcry for paizo to ban this class in pfs play, I am going to ignore all the rules that let you play such a concept. In fact I will smugly tell you, even though your feat choices are legal, you should have picked other feats because I will not let you use them."

Sure if this was a home game where I knew before hand cavs were banned, I'd be more than happy to try other fun fantasy troupes. But this is organized play, a shared environment. I am baffled why GMs feel it is alright to go beyond RAW.

Once again this is a short bit of stairs with the horse starting from flat ground. Notice the rider has to make his profile low to the horse to do this? Now do that with Fullplate and barding.

Whoa. . . Wait first you say medium riders can't do that. And you have cavalry experience to back it up. You find a video, back pedal and now say well trained riders only. I show a family who look like they're fooling around, on steeper / narrower stairs, and moving much faster then you're video, and you're still at it? Now you're adding in plate armor and barding are the reason for hard dc ride checks? I'd really like to find the rules on that one.

Well thats the perfect example of the atitude I've encountered with GMs making some PFS games unfun. Some gms just can't take mounts and will try to find every rule and add more so the small guy is essentially useless. I mean really?

Most important thing to read on 402is that GM are the law of the game, pg 402 for those of you that want to go by the book when it comes to rulings against you, then throw the book out when it doesnt suit you.

Wow. . . Just wow.

So is it better to stick to all cleric levels?

Clerics are proficient with them. They're not proficient with other bows.

Oh...I'm thinking of taking the 'heirloom weapon' trait to solve that problem or be a cleric of a deity that uses bows.

I've seen it done Cleric/Zen Archer and Cleric/Fighter. Fighter version wasn't worth a damn after level 10, Zen Archer version plain ole sucked until he died at 9th level. Stick to crossbow, maybe rapid reload and your attacks will be something once you start self buffing and get outside 5th level.

I'm curious why a crossbow?

Oh another pet peeve I have. "Its a dog, no matter how much ranks its got in climb, I will never allow it to climb a ladder." Well . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl1iok0QJtI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0matw1YPmbA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS4dHFa8BzU

And no I am not advocating that a dog would be able to climb a ladder with a halfling on its back. Then again, maybe with a DC 30 ride check....;)

Tinkering with a cleric build. Mostly healing support with some ranged attacks in it (archery).

I'm thinking of dipping into some monk levels for the zen archer archetype. Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGdhu9tBV6s You wanted me to find a horse going up stairs here you go, a police horse going up only a few stairs at a time, the horse slows considerably every attempt and this is starting with a flat platform. If this horse had to go up an entire flight of stairs there would be trouble, and this is a well trained horse.

Really? you only found 1 video? I search and it seems a pretty common riding trick with even steeper inclines then that.

Do these folks seem well trained to you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXqRGSsS90M

I can't help but groan at all the replies about "loopholes" over gray areas. Well I don't see anything in the rules about a dog being a less suitable mount than a horse or a pony or a snake or turtle or a tyrannosaurus because of "weight distribution". Nothing in rules about ride checks for walking through difficult terrain. But sure penalize cavs anyway.

Oh wait cavs have a high ride skill, well lets make it a dc 30. Surely navigating stairs is much harder for a dog, than a rogue trying tumble through someone's legs in combat. Never mind that this dog is as strong as grizzly, more nimble than a pony, and as compact as a dwarf.

I am also not sure how a typical dungeon or indoors is any more difficult than say a forest or a jungle, where wolves, apes, tigers and panthers seem to run prey down without slowing down or tripping every 10 feet.

In PFS charging is hard enough in enclosed places with allies and tables and chairs without adding in "need arena like spaces" in order for a mount to charge. Rules say 2 clear squares. Why the need to add to that? Why add stipulations that these squares in the dungeon are clear for other characters, but difficult terrain for mounts? Wouldn't you think that 4 legs give some mounts an advantage in this area?

Well, with all due respect to the others who have taken the time to post, I get it. Indeed, I'm thankful to all the DMs who make time to run games for strangers.

It's just something I've noticed. For some DMs mounts automatically equate to a "powerbuild", never mind that typical small cav is doing only 1d6 + 4 damage, and will probably do one mounted charge the whole scenario. And yup, Dessio nailed it, most of the time a cav IS a fighter without feats.

Well you've just proven my point. Somehow a cavalier is now considered a powerbuild. When a halfling takes -2 to strength, and takes smaller damage dice, and has to pay for magic items for both the mount and himself, I'd say he barely keeps up with a rogue. Anyway that was the very point I wanted to make, some GMs just can't take the class and go out of the way to make the class do nothing. Which isn't fun . . .

I served in the cavalry, the term dismounted patrol isnt just for modern warfar. GMs are there to interpert rules where there is none, and riding a dog up the stairs is going to be rough terrain.

No disrespect intended. Sure... I'd buy rough terrain. I wasn't talking fighting on stairs, or jumping or leaping. Just moving up stairs. Look it isn't about stairs. Its the knee jerk reaction apparently significant number of folks have against medium mounts. They can accept humanoids with wings, but can't get their heads around mounted dogs / cats / boars. So they overcompensate by imposing all sorts of penalties.

Your trying to ride you mount up stairs? Ya that is a bit cheesy. Medium size cavs can't do that, you think you can just because your small? Your mount is still medium and with you on top that would be one hell of a ride check. Sometimes you need to dismount nature of the beast.

See . . . :D DMs get all in a bunch when nothing in the rules say stairs require ride checks. Also, I have yet to see a dog, wolf or cat have a hard time moving up or down stairs. I'm not even sure why YOU think a horse would have a hard time navigating stairs if it was large enough.

I'd buy it if the horse was trying to run up the stairs. But walking? Really? Do a google on riding horse up or down stairs. Hope that's enough to convince you.

Hmm...actually I like most PFS DMs in my area on a personal level, and I'm not here to vilify them. Some people are better story tellers than rules lawyers. DMing hard enough, and I don't want to give them a harder time then it already is.

I've always wanted to build a summoner since UM, but looking all the threads on summoner rules, I'm shying away from it, as it looks even more controversial than mounted combat.

So, I've been into PFS for about two years now. I truly enjoy this format. But lately, I've been having a rather difficult time playing a halfling cavalier. Most of the time, when I get a game with my usual GM, we get along fine. It is indeed very rare to get a rules straight, and I truly do rather RP then argue over rules. However sometimes, with a new GM (as is usual in PFS), they appear to think a medium mount is cheesy and put all sorts of unwarranted penalties.

Examples are: Ruling the medium sized dog / wolf / pony has to swim in knee high water, but lets the dwarf move along just fine. Penalties to ride checks when moving through an ally's square. Wont let a small cav ride mount up stairs. Ruling that a mount will only watch, while the cav is deep in combat, coz the dog / wolf / dinosaur somehow has turned into an automaton, and wont do anything as it doesn't understand common. Inconsistent DCs for jumps. Apparently for some GMs a fast 4 legged animal with a light load, will have a harder time jumping a 5 foot square then a fully armed & armored fighter.

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I just wanted to know if others have found certain classes difficult to play as the rules are just too unclear to get right given the round robin GMs PFS tends to encourage. I'd like to avoid these, and not waste another two years investing in a class that causes so much controversy.

Ok...what would be legal in Pathfinder Society play? If I was a DM, I'd allow specialized x of speed for bears, dolphins, etc. But apparently opinion varies from DM to DM. Which is very difficult, as PFS doesn't allow changing bought items from game to game.

Are the horseshoes only wearable by a horse? Or do other mounts eligible?

So with this scenario:

Mount has spring attack
Cavalier has mobility

What is happens when the mount spring attacks?

Only mount gets to attack and move away. Cav triggers OA
Both mount and Cav gets to attack at the same time. Mount moves away. Cav triggers OA.
Mount gets an attack, moves away, then Cav gets an attack.

Thanks in advance. :D

The emissary archetype grants mobility:

"At 5th level, an emissary learns to be more aware of the threats that surround him in combat, and shares this awareness with his loyal steed. Both the emissary and his mount gain Mobility as a bonus feat.

This ability replaces banner."

Does this mean a cav gets mobility even if he does not have dodge?

Has there been any developments on this? Lots of mounted cavs are showing up during PFS games. Itnwould be nice to have a consistent ruling rather than a house rule during every game.

Errata (what there is of it) is here.

Is it the core book update? I didn't find anything that mentions a change to AC rules.

Because errata is never perfect. Just like things get overlooked in the first printing of the book, things get overlooked when compiling errata.

Errata? Where does paizo put the errata? I can't find this.

That was a fun game. Great meeting everyone. It was a really good party, with everyone's help it all worked.

Kinda like the old Let's Make a Deal ... "Monty, I'll take what's behind door number one, and door number two, and curtain number three." :-0

(My first game with a Venture-Captain! All is coolness!)

Had fun too. Hope its a start of a more consistent experience.

Oh that would be nice. Perhaps you could start a thread on the forums or perhaps a google group?

That would be great. I dropped by Sat at 3G as there was a scheduled PFS game, but no one showed up.

Forgot to return to this and say thanks for making it happen. An absolute blast, especially having the privilege of aiding fellow Pathfinders from other tables in healing their wounds. Ding CL4! :D

+ 1 Hope this isn't the last PFS event held in Redmond.

So if you haven't seen the announcement by now, I've been made the official Venture-Captain for the Seattle area. While this isn't why I stepped down as the coordinator for the Olympia group, it's something I would have done either way. I know that Angela will keep the group going and growing, and until there's an official Olympia-area Venture-Captain, feel free to contact me about anything you guys need help with in the Society. I haven't moved yet, but when I do I'll still try to make it down from time to time to play or run a game with you guys.

Are there games run in the bellevue / redmond area?