Hoping there is still space. I have
Player name Peter Rogers
PC name Volsung Dream Seer
PFS number 226993-12
Faction Silver Crusade
PC level Swash 1/Mees 7
Progression speed (slow/normal)
Aasimar
Search Posts
I think one thing about "gunslingers and technology" is that the "gunslinger" in fiction generally only involves guns at a level of technology several steps below modern high tech guns. This is from a generally anti-gun guy. The basic problem is that the PF1e gunslinger was a bad idea mechanically and thematically, and the PF2e design team wants to somehow port over this bad idea to the new edition.
>Cheliax took L after L in PF1. What's largely saving them from the next seven catastrophes is that "the Whispering Tyrant is up and about" lets Cheliax say "we're Diablolists, sure, but that just means we want to stay alive!" and play nice with their neighbors and lick their wounds and rebuild Cheliax. Yeah, TB is the best thing ever to happen to Cheliax. Otherwise, it would have been a prime target for all the now unemployed crusaders against evil extra-planar creatures as well as all the anti-slavery nations and organizations.
Wow this is sad....I don't think it's a slight? It's not uncommon for a reference to be valence flipped just to throw people off scent on a character.OK, I've got an idea for a NPC named "Sutter," so the players will be surprised when he turns out to be an intelligent and clever writer. I'm glad you agree that mocking an actual person in this manner is a petty move, and I apologize for having done so in regards to John Sutter. Honestly without evidence to prove otherwise I would assume this is all just coinsidence I'm not sure which would reflect more poorly on Paizo, deliberately naming the NPC in this manner or not being aware of who "Pratchett" is in a fantasy context. OK, I've had my say and stand by everything I've written here, even if I'm the only person on Roundworld who feels this way.
...I don't think it's a slight? It's not uncommon for a reference to be valence flipped just to throw people off scent on a character. OK, I've got an idea for a NPC named "Sutter," so the players will be surprised when he turns out to be an intelligent and clever writer.
So, Terry Pratchett writes some of the best fantasy books ever written, many of them focusing on the city and guard of Ankh-Morpork (the Discworld's Absalom). One of these novels, Night Watch, has opposition to torture as a major theme. In return, Paizo names the murderous sadistic villain of Book 1 of the AP after him (and no one can tell me that they didn't know what they were doing when they used this name). It may not be a big thing, but it comes as across as really tacky and petty.
The one other thing I did was to try and put together a timeline for the events of Book 6 along with the Siege of Gallowspire and Passing the Torch 2. CAMPAIGN TIMELINE Day 1 – Destruction of Vigil and TB’s escape from Gallowspire Day 28 - TB v Arazani at Renchurch Day 35 – TB uses radiant fire at Hammer Rock Day 40 (day 1 battle timeline, see below) - TB takes first wave of Fallowdeep forces to Immenwood outside of Absalom Day 42 – PCs return to Lastwall (PCs spend two weeks doing book 5) Day 43 – PCs go to Fallowdeep BATTLE TIMELINE Day 1 (day 40 of campaign timeline) - Initial wave of TB’s forces in arrives in Immenwood Day 2 - Lyanthari closes teleportation circles Day 3 - AP PCs arrive at Fallowdeep Day 4 Day 5 - AP PCs arrive at Immenwood battlefield from Fallowdeep (start rolling for Passing the Torch 2 random event) Day 6 - Flash Point Encounters 1 (start rolling for Siege of Gallowspire conclusion) Day 7 - Flashpoint Encounters 2 Day 8 - Tyrant’s Grasp Book 6 concluding day I'm not totally happy with this and would welcome any comments, suggestions, etc.
Thank you for your very helpful assumptions and listings. I'm feeling a little more comfortable after having at least some basic idea in my GM's mind. Thanks for the kind words. I'm very slowly moving ahead on this, mainly waiting for official PFS sanctioning of the AP since I'd be running book 6 for PFS characters in campaign mode. If/when I do this, I'd like to emphasize the battle elements of the AP using a revised set of the Mass Combat rules from Ultimate Campaign. Here's a very rough first draft of a battlefield hex map. However, it's fairly low down the page of my current to-do list.
Interesting, Return is sanctioned in Additional Resources https://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/additional, but not on any of the product pages https://paizo.com/products/btq01w1w?Pathfinder-Adventure-Path-138-Rise-of-N ew-Thassilon. This would seem to be a cause for optimism.
The Organized Play folks have consistently said that it will be sanctioned, though they've never provided a clear timeline for doing so (which is partly understandable given the whole pandemic craziness). FWIW, I would be more than a little disappointed if they go back on these promises (not that my disappointment will have any great effect on anything, anywhere).
Why the buckler? You can combine unarmed attacks with an ordinary shield just fine. Aesthetics, I'm OK with my monk having a smallish buckler but not a larger shield of some sort. I absolutely do not want to be Capt America.
Just a general comment on the line between inappropriate/offensive and appropriate. I think the torture porn box text descriptions in scenarios such as King of Storval Stairs and the Moonscare are much upsetting that the Spoiler: in Golemworks Incident.
attempt to use the plot of Psycho I'm not saying to this to argue with one or attempt to convince folks to my point of view, just noting some of my thoughts on this.
The Lost Omens World Guide says the Worldwound was closed in 4718 AR. I was under the impression that this happened earlier, sometime between 4713 and 4715 AR. It now looks like the campaign to close the Worldwound, the combined efforts of the heroes of Wrath of the Righteous and the 5th Crusade, took five years from 4713 to 4718. It also appears that the first major event in this campaign was the failed demon attack on Nerosyan, shown in the PFS Special - Siege of the Diamond City. Is this more-or-less correct?
I'm somewhat speculating here, but it's possible the root of this hostility is the way that min-maxing players would take penalties in one or more areas, ability scores, etc in order to maximize other aspects of their characters. This could cause one to be suspicious of anyone taking a voluntary penalty, thinking this is being done to gain an advantage elsewhere. It's clear this is not what Kalindlara is asking about, and I also think this will be less of an issue with PF2e.
Until we get something official from the design team, I've come to the conclusion that it's an unsolvable mess. Any benefits from playing a PC with mountain stance are hugely outweighed the many disagreements regarding the wording of the feat. Fair enough, I should have specified PFS.
Until we get something official from the design team, I've come to the conclusion that it's an unsolvable mess. Any benefits from playing a PC with mountain stance are hugely outweighed the many disagreements regarding the wording of the feat.
I'm curious about the relationship, if any, between the Dominion of the Black and the alghollthus on Golarion and elswhere? Do they ... get along? try to murder each other immediately upon meeting? cooperate on some selective projects? (Is so, what sort?)? generally ignore each other as one is more space-going and the other is all about hanging around the depths of the oceans? Thanks
A question and a thought: Question about the Decemvirate masks on pp. 54-56 - Eliza Petulengro's "mask of whorled black mesh that wraps the head like a tangle of thorns" is the bottom left on p. 54, correct? Thought - I'm not sure "faction" is the best term for the new PFS2 factions. To my mind, faction implies a certain amount of conflict and dissention inside an organization. Consider the phrase "faction-ridden" which is almost always used in a negative way. The new Society guide describes the new factions in a fairly positive light, certainly as compared to the previous ones. I don't have a great substitute in mind. "Affiliation" is one term that did occur to me.
I asked about folks' thoughts on Mountain Stance, Leaping, definition of "ground," etc. on a local Discord channel. Two people who GM regularly gave me two fairly different answers. At this point, I think I'll be retraining my little dwarf monk from Mountain Stance to either Monastic Weaponry or Wolf Stance. There seems to be too much table variation regarding Mountain Stance. I thought I understood how it worked, but it looks like I was just kidding myself. EDIT: Thanks to those who started and contributed to this thread and the similar one in General Discussion. There have been many interesting ideas and much to think about.
Curious what are folks' thoughts about Abundant Step and Mountain Stance. I would not have thought that casting Abundant Step would take one out of Mountain Stance, but perhaps there are those who think it would?
I think my most important uses of leaping have been out of combat - jump over a gorge to fix a bridge, jump from floating platform to floating platform to impress people, etc. I have leaped over difficult terrain a couple of times in combat, but that's been less critical to the success of the adventure. However, I'm still only 5th level and haven't picked up feats such as Dancing Leaf and Flying Kick. While I felt comfortable with my reading of the relevant rules, I am putting together an email to send to folks who GM PF2e games that I play in. We'll see what they have to say. If they disagree with my interpretation, I think I'll survive emotionally as there are a lot of interesting alternative monk features, feats, etc. If only I hadn't spent all those PFS2e achievement points to get an orc PC.
... Or how the section on Speed refers to "land speed" over the "ground."
So, when one runs, it's very possible for both feet to be off the ground at the same time. Does that mean running should remove you from mountain stance? Also, the "normal English meaning" for ground includes earth, dirt, rock, etc. If that's the criteria for making rules judgements, one can then make an argument that you go out of mountain stance as soon as you step on a wooden floor. When I started trying to figure this out, I didn't know what I'd find. I didn't go into this thinking, "I want to be able to jump while in mountain stance, let's cherry pick or construct an argument that allows that." I went into it with a method, using the text that's available to us in the rules, and I came to the conclusion that jumping does not force one out of mountain stance. To my mind, trying to stick as close as possible to the text of the rules provides the best chance of avoiding what are often endless and unresolvable debates.
The tricky bit is that this is yet another meta-question. What are acceptable sources of evidence for ruling one way or another on a contested rule? For better or worse, I'm trying to stay as textual as possible. I'd like to avoid having to depend on judgements about whether or not something is "meaningful" or if the devs are "good at their jobs." So, my understanding of mountain stance is firmly rooted in a reading of the CRB where the only reference to "ground" is in the section on Movement where the subsection on Speed (p. 463) reads: "Most characters and monsters have a speed statistic— also called land Speed—which indicates how quickly they can move across the ground. When you use the Stride action, you move a number of feet equal to your Speed. Numerous other abilities also allow you to move, from Crawling to Leaping, and most of them are based on your Speed in some way . Whenever a rule mentions your Speed without specifying a type, it’s referring to your land Speed." Ground is defined as something you move across using your land speed, and this section also includes a reference to Leaping (see the bolded sentence above). In the section on Leap on p. 242, there is no mention that leaping causes you to exit land/ground speed. If there is textual evidence which contradicts my position, I'd be happy to see it. I'm taking this position not so as to be an ass (or so I hope) but to try and make the interpretation of the rules as clear and simple as possible.
Not at all being argumentative, but what if I don't think a jump action should be "an obvious end for Mountain Stance?" And I totally agree with you that it's the players' responsibility to follow the rules, not do whatever you want until the GM says you have to stop. However, this is a case that I've thought about a lot, and I've followed and sometimes contributed to the various discussions on this topic. As I see jumps are done as part of "ground" movement. They're not flying. So, to my mind, executing a jump action should not end mountain stance. I guess this is a subset of a broader topic. If there is an unclear or contested rule that affects one's character, is it the player's responsibility to bring this to the attention of the GM and tell the GM how they're interpreting the rule in question?
Now I wonder something else. How granular are people treating this? I'm imagining a GM trying to slide a hand under the monk like a wrestling referee checking if shoulders are on the mat. I'm guessing RAI is that you're still allowed to do modest hops, run, avoid legsweeps, that sort of thing.Well, technically speaking you are not touching the ground even when just moving fast, i.e. normal running, if you do not use some kind of racewalking techniques. However I would never ever consider this an issue at all (and even if it were an issue it is probably already covered by the speed penalty incurred by the stance) and thus not question the requirement any further. Going too deep here is nonsense. How I handle this is to say that a monk in mountain stance must at some point in their turn be on the ground. What's a big no-no is not touching the ground at all during one's turn, say by flying or swimming. Mind you, this is how I'm interpreting this as a player. However, I've never had a GM go, "You just did a long jump, so you are no longer in mountain stance."
FWIW, my approach to PF2e and PFS2e is to play characters classes that I haven't played before. For PF2e/PFS2e, I've created two PCs, a monk and a bard with champion dedication. I never had a monk, bard, or paladin (unless you count my "Paladin of Calistria") PF1e character. By doing this, I don't compare my PF1e and PF2e characters, their abilities, power, etc and thus don't feel disappointed, nerfed, etc.
You can Stride across liquid and surfaces that don’t support your weight. This benefit lasts only during your movement. If you end your movement on a surface that can’t support you, you fall in or it collapses as normal.Monks with this feat can use their land Speed to walk over water. Pjrogers, would you rule that they remain in Mt Stance when they do so? I'd make them reactivate it on the other side. (Well, if I didn't houserule away the ground requirement completely.) No, because it's clear that water is not ground as this particular feat is needed for you to use you land/ground speed to cross it.
If the carpet is 10 feet long are you in a position to use your land speed to move about on the carpet? I would say "no," but I'll acknowledge that's a fairly arbitrary "no." The problem, as I see it, is the lack of any clear and explicit definition of "ground" which can be colloquially used in at least two ways: 1) A solid surface of some sort 2) More restrictively - earth, rock, dirt, etc. I have a mountain stance monk, and I spent some time looking about the CRB for the meaning of "ground," and the closest I could find was its use in the section on movement quoted above.
Lacking any clear guidance from the design team or explicit definition of "ground," I have interpreted it as follows. "Touching the ground" means being in position to use one's "land speed," as this described as "how quickly [one] can move across the ground." Moving around on the deck of a ship, you are using your land/ground speed which would allow one to be in mountain stance. If you're on a flying carpet, you're using its fly speed and thus not in position to be in mountain stance. Note this does mean, I'd be OK with someone being in mountain stance on the deck of a flying ship as long as they are in position to use their land/ground speed to move about the ship.
I put together an orc PC, bard with champion dedication at level 2. For fun, I picked the race feat Beast Trainer because the character is a champion of Cayden Cailean whose sacred animals are hounds. Long story short, I got a dog, and the skill feat is mechanically useless. It is fun for RP purposes, and when I get to level 6, my noble mastiff, Everclear, will become my "steed" and become somewhat useful. However, I suspect this particular build is a long, long way from min/maxing, which is fine with me.
So, the sentence from the 10/1 blog that kicked all of this off . . . "Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge." . . . would seem to make no sense as I was under the impression that one always has access to "common" spells. If all Learn a Spell does is grant "access," then why would one need to use it to "learn any common spells they have access to.?" I know I've come late to this, and I'm not trying to (re)start any fireworks, but this genuinely makes no sense to me.
Learn a Spell grants Access Just weighing in as someone who is very confused by all this. But as I understand it, Learn a Spell says "You can gain access to a new spell of your tradition from someone who knows that spell or from magical writing like a spellbook or scroll." If you have "access" to a spell, then Learn a Spell doesn't seem to add anything to that.
As I noted above back in July, I still live in the perhaps naive hope that the last two PF1 APs will be sanctioned. This was once promised, albeit in a pre-pandemic world.
That or Sentinel plus Dirge of Doom and, eventually, Rogue Dedication for Dread Striker are basically the build. It takes a bit to get going, but hits full martial level in everything but damage (and HP, though Rogue and some other martials don't hit that either) as well as being a full caster.#3. A frontliner with martial AC, damage, and to-hit chance (technically, how they achieve these doesn't matter, though most casters will have trouble...I think there's a valid Bard build). For a really optimal party, you probably want two of these, actually.I'd be curious about such a bard build as that's what I'm trying to create. My best effort so far is a Bard (warrior muse) with a Champion dedication. Cool, thanks - nice to know that I'm on the right track.
#3. A frontliner with martial AC, damage, and to-hit chance (technically, how they achieve these doesn't matter, though most casters will have trouble...I think there's a valid Bard build). For a really optimal party, you probably want two of these, actually. I'd be curious about such a bard build as that's what I'm trying to create. My best effort so far is a Bard (warrior muse) with a Champion dedication.
I don’t want to re-ignite any craziness, but the whole topic of elements of player and GM modernity in a fantasy setting that was at least originally inspired by pre-modernity has fascinated me ever since my first high level AD&D magic user built an industrial park back when I was playing fairly regularly in the late 1970s and early 1980s. For better or worse, fantasy settings such as Golarion are largely based on pre-modern historical experiences and settings. There are the Vikings of the Lands of the Linnorms Kings, ancient Egypt in Osirion, etc. However, we as players and GMs bring values, attitudes, and ways of thinking that would be in many ways incomprehensible to the people of these places. Inevitably, we have this mix of the pre-modern, modern, and post-modern livened up a good-sized dash of magic and a mess of gods, demons, devils, etc. all roaming around. Trying to find a degree of balance is difficult and highly subjective (note Davor’s lack of affection for Alkenstar and Numeria). I’m not looking to restart a discussion on this topic here. It’s the wrong place for it for one reason. If one wanted to explore these issues, the Lost Omens Campaign Setting forum might be the best place. I just want to give a sense of where I was coming from and to apologize for not adequately framing my original critique of the dialog in the blog post at the top of this forum. I’m afraid this lack of context for my first post may have contributed to the fireworks which followed.
By pre-modern, I mean pre-18th century Enlightenment. Golarion can to some degree be looked at as more like the world of the 17th century and earlier or more like the world of the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd argue that for the most part, Golarion is more pre-modern than modern. Actually, we could look at the dialogue in Pathfinder novels, adventures, etc. and see what terms are used there. That would be one use of the Voyant text analysis tools that I was suggesting.
As I indicated above, I have no problem with the idea of routines. I find the language used by the characters to describe these routines as problematic given the pre-modern context of Pathfinder.
It's not that they are "big" words. It's the tone of the conversation that sounds incompatible to me. According to our friend the OED, protocol goes all the way back to the 1400s. However, it's use as a term for standard operating procedure, the manner in which it used above, dates from the 20th century. We have level two spells, we can have level two protocols. Do PCs and NPCs say "level two" spell in character? We as gamers use these terms, but I don't recall seeing this sort of terminology used in in-game dialogue. I may of course be wrong. It would be interesting to toss a bunch of Pathfinder scenarios into a tool like https://voyant-tools.org/ to analyze how NPCs speak. Ultimately, this is a question of literary criticism. I think the text has some problems as a piece of literature, others do not. That's just fine with me.
I will freely stipulate that what I wrote sucked. No big surprise, I'm not a writer, and it's very possible that I am old enough to be your grandfather (And what's wrong with the writing of grandfathers? Would you criticize Tolkien's writing because of his age?) Is it your contention that the Pathfinder Society is a paramility organization? If one does a search of this Organized Play/Pathfinder Society forum, there are exactly seven mentions of "paramilitary," most of them not referring to the society in this manner. The word "paramilitary" does not occur at all in the new PFS Guide to Play, https://org-play-2e-guide.readthedocs.io/_/downloads/en/latest/pdf/, nor does it appear in the Season 10 guide from PFS 1e. Finally, if I do a full Google search for "Pathfinder Society" and paramilitary, there is nothing in the first page of results that describes the Pathfinder Society in this manner. I have never seen any of my Pathfinder characters as working for a paramilitary organization. If you see your Pathfinder Society characters as belonging to one, that's fine with me, but there doesn't appear to be any lore support for your position. Furthermore, even if the Pathfinder Society were a pre-modern paramilitary organization similar to the Knights Templar, I don't see its members using the language in the above bit of text. I didn't even mention what I consider to be the worst line, “Apologies, sir, but all Captain Benarry’s correspondence is considered pre-cleared for level-two scanning protocols only.” I think this is an attempt to be humorous, but all is does for me is sound totally incompatible with the Society as I understand it.
What's the situation with boon slots? I don't fully understand this part of the new guide... "Boons are rewards that can be applied to a character. Common types of boons include AchievemnetPoints (AcP), Chronicle, or Faction. Boons often have traits that describe how the boon applies. There are some boon traits that deserve specific mention: Advanced A boon with the Advanced trait is typically more powerful than other boons.Characters may only benefit from one advanced boon during an adventure. Ally A boon with the Ally trait often places a Pawn. An Ally boon that places a Pawn cannot be used if the PC has already placed a second Pawn this game.. Promotional These boons reward Players for promoting the society, or for exceptional contributions to the campaign. Characters may only benefit from one advanced boon during an adventure. TYPO HERE, SHOULD READ "promotional boon" rather than "advanced boon." Unless a boon states otherwise, you can only apply one of any given boon to a character." What are the limits on boons that aren't Advanced or Promotional or require the placement of a Pawn? Can I use as many as I want during an adventure? Can I only use one additional one during an adventure? Can I use as many as I want during an adventure as long as I only apply any given boon once? This last is how I understand the language here, but I'm far from certain and would greatly appreciate some hip enlightenment from you kids.
To each their own, I find it off-putting. All in all, I've not been that excited or impressed by much of the 2nd edition society content. I'm enjoying playing my two PFS 2e characters primarily because they have backstory links to some of PFS 1e characters. I think it's useful for PFS administrators, designers, developers, etc. to know that not everyone is thrilled with the content they're producing. Sometimes, these forums sound like fanboy clubs rather than critical consumers/players of a role playing game. |
Shopping Cart
|