I realize off of the current discussion, but linked to original post...I did play LOTRO yesterday. I enjoyed it very much. I haven't completely figured out my 7th level powers yet, but I'm sure I will when I have the chance to fiddle around with them. (I was playing a hobbit and Sewicked was playing a human, so mostly I was having to run everywhere to keep up with her!) And I did actually spend quite some time practicing how to take things in and out of my pack and examining new item stats vs old item stats to figure out how all of that worked. Having figured it out there, hopefully the same sort of process in PFO will be much easier. So-definitely helpful. Thanks, all, for this thread. :)
I appreciate this thread very much, so thanks for those who have given opinions. Sewicked, Chris, and I have actually scheduled to try LOTRO together tomorrow, with help from one of our Marsh Wardens who's experienced in playing it--just to get our toes wet prior to playing pfo. Good to know that it will be a helpful experience.
Yes, this, very much this!
Huh. This makes me feel surprisingly better. Thank you. Really.
Settlement name: Hammerfall
Settlement alignment: NG
Motto: Threads of wood, gold and iron woven into one tapestry for all.
Settlement goals: This is a settlement formed by alliance of The Hearthguard and Marsh Wardens Chartered Companies. Our goal: To be a haven for non-evil PC craftsmen, explorers and warriors. Striving for individual excellence but working together to assist and protect our community and its allies.
Please come join us on GW land grab website if you feel you would like to be part of such a community!
Ryan Dancey wrote:
We don't have an answer to this question yet but it is increasingly looking like there will be a mechanism to transfer your account balance out of Paizo's system and into our system and then use our system to allocate the add-ons.
Awesome. Thank you for your patience with the questions of an mmo newbie.
The warpriest also isn't immune to fear, isn't immune to charm, isn't immune to disease and doesn't get to add charisma to all saves. The warpriest also doesn't have full BAB on any weapon he/she picks up, or d10 hit dice. My point is that just getting the fervor ability doesn't make the warpriest better than the paladin. It just makes the warpriest much better as a class. They're two different, but fairly equal classes.
I really like the new sacred weapon ability. The part about using your warpriest level as your BAB for sacred weapons and the new level dependent damage die regardless of weapon type really helps this class be more effective as a holy champion. I actually may want to play one now, where before the class just made me sad. Thank you!
While I'm grateful to know there's yet another class I can get access to a bear in (and thus the owlbear that's still floating on my nebulous as yet unplayed character), I have to say it saddens me that there seem to be so many people on the message boards these days who can't just accept a really nice, mostly flavor boon as just that--but instead feel that they have to twist the numbers on that boon so hard they nearly break in order to turn it into something "worthwhile". I just hope the paizo team doesn't stop giving us the cool flavor boons because of it.
Pirate Rob wrote:
I would prefer the scenarios be geared toward the average player. If they want to make a "hard mode" for the optimized groups, that's ok, but part of the reason that I love PFS is that you don't have to be min maxed with half your stats dumped to be an effective character. What I disliked most about the last couple of years of another OP game I participated in was that every single scenario was so "challenging" that if you weren't some completely torqued out uber munchkin from beyond the stars, you weren't only ineffective--you were flat out dead. Every...single...scenario. I trust Paizo not to do that.
I would definitely be willing to pay extra to get all of the maps in these modules pre-printed or even as pdfs that are already on the correct scale. Honestly, I'm considering going to office max today and paying them a godawful amount of money to print them to the right size for me, anyway. I'd rather give my money to paizo than office max!
Okay-I received access yesterday for my second level ranger/first level fighter to an animal companion that's not on the normal ranger list. I know I could be a beastmaster ranger to get access to this animal, but doing so would really damage the entire concept this character was built around due to the loss of the 6th level bonus feat, so I'm hesitant to do it. I could dip into the maddog barbarian class without completely screwing up my character and this would also give access to the necessary animal as a companion---if the ranger levels stack with other classes that offer animal companions like the core rulebook indicates is supposed to happen. However, my GM told me that in PFS the ruling is that in order for them to stack, you'd have to use the most restrictive list (ie: ranger). I've searched for about half an hour and can't find anywhere in the FAQ or the general discussion boards for PFS that says this. The only thing I could find was from three years ago, from Joshua Frost, and it appears to say the exact opposite (says that if you were a ranger/druid you'd use the full druid list for your possible animal companion choices).
That ruling from Joshua here
Can someone point me to the more current ruling from Mike/Mark/John that says you use the most restrictive list instead? If I could take this option as my animal companion, it would be cool, but I don't want to cheat--so if it's not allowed, I'll just take the non-combat pet option. My search fu is obviously weak today.
Dennis Baker wrote:
I think eliminating the paper chronicles would be potentially very very bad. Right now, if a GM doesn't bother to report your game, you have the paper chronicle as proof that you played, earned experience, etc. With an all electronic system, you'd just be out of luck.
So, I never saved the link about paladin mounts because, really, the relevant information for me at the time was that it couldn't be used on the eidolon anymore. I believe the reasoning on that is that rangers, oracles of nature, paladins, clerics with the animal domain, etc., all say that their mounts/animal companions function "as a druid's animal companion" of such and such a level. They all reference the druid animal companion charts for advancement and thus boon companion applies to them. Eidolons are sentient outsiders with their very own chart and don't reference the druid animal companion ability or chart, so it doesn't apply to them.
Anyway, the link I was able to find is here
Another one is here
Another one is here
The last one is here
Andrew Christian wrote:
Unless access is granted through another legal source (like the list of feats available to animal companions in the core rulebook).
This is a personal pet peeve of mine and I realize it probably won't be changed, but it would be really nice if that phrase about a pc having to be one step in alignment from his/her god (regardless of class). I just find it exceptionally annoying that my sorceror who gets absolutely no divine spells at all from her god, has to be one step away in alignment, even though the core rules put no such restrictions on sorcerors. (especially since her deity isn't actually a god at all) This restriction pretty much puts a block on playing oracles the way they're supposed to be played, revering all the gods who stand for the mystery they're a part of. You can't be one step away in alignment from both Sarenrae and Asmodeus for the fire mystery, for example.
Also, Mike, you've clarified in other threads on the Sanctioned Novel chronicles that you can apply one to each pc that you own (once) when you buy the novel. However, the current wording in the organized play document makes it sound like you can only apply the chronicle to one pc. A rewording would be nice.
You know, I was going to say that, as well...but then I noticed they appear to have removed that from the paragraph in the new 4.0 update. I wonder if that was intentional or a cut and paste error?
From 3.3 guide:
From 4.0 guide: