teribithia9's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 826 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 15 Organized Play characters.


The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atheory wrote:

I couldn't resist, I had the x-mas song in my head when I saw this post.....

I'm making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's got stuff I want.

Atheory's coming to town.

I see you when you're gathering, I know when you're online, I know if you got stuff to take, so you better run faster than me.

No worries. But just because we're not raiders doesn't mean we're idiots. ;)

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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. :)

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Virgil Firecask wrote:
Lawn Gnomes will be the unofficial player jargon term.

+1 for lawn gnomes

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deianira wrote:
Banesama wrote:
I could see us helping Hammerfall and Blackwood Glade securing their Towers. This would be just helping friends. Not necessarily an alliance. I leave that stuff to the diplomats and our leaders.

<hug>

You're drinking for free at the tavern. Once we have a tavern. And drinks.

Yes, this, very much this!

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Cal B wrote:
Most small settlements will have to give up before they have time to train anything.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems likely that the OPPOSITE will be true. That is, ANY 'guild' which wins one of the land rush settlements should be in great shape... no matter how small they are.

Why? Because there is no apparent method of capturing a SETTLEMENT yet. Nor any apparent benefit to capturing a tower unless you are allied with a settlement. Nor any apparent way to found NEW settlements yet.

So, when EE rolls around and the game population explodes to many times that of the land rush participation there are going to be tons of players looking to get in on the towers game... which they can only do by allying with a settlement. That little seven person settlement is completely indestructible (until later in the game) AND can provide cool training benefits if some of these new people form a company and ally with them. Indeed, if the settlement is small and allied companies only control a few hexes then their PvP window will be short and it will be easier for small companies to hold their towers.

Basically, it seems like the 33 initial settlements from the land rush just got A LOT more important. Instead of being added months down the line they will be in the game from day 1. Further, instead of having to compete with newly founded settlements they will be the only options for several months.

Huh. This makes me feel surprisingly better. Thank you. Really.

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anthony Adam wrote:
I will post the customer support response here to help anyone else having similar issues.

If you actually just click on goblinworks, too, instead of choosing any of the options in the drop down menu, it does take you to a contact us page with everyone's email.

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't edit my original post, but this is just to say that the Settlement of Hammerfall has requested that it be added as a signatory of the Roseblood Accord.

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The Settlement of Hammerfall requests to be added to the signatories of the Roseblood Accord.

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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!

Hammerfall Google Group

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you to all the patient souls who posted here to explain things to me. i will take it back to my company and these explanations will greatly help us in our decisions. Again, I really do appreciate the clarifications.

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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 Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChainsawSam wrote:
teribithia9 wrote:
Captain K. wrote:

It's too powerful.

It's better than the Paladin. This ain't right.

It has 6th level spells so it will always be better than the Paladin in most ways, but don't make it better at fighting than us good guys.

A Warpriest of Iomedae is probably a better warrior than a Paladin of Iomadae. This isn't right.

It doesn't get smite.

You just can't beat smite.
You can beat it quite easily against anything that isn't evil.

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.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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!

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pirate Rob wrote:

I'm sorry you had a bad experience Chris. Even on normal Waking Rune is no joke and significantly harder than a normal scenario.

Your complaints here illustrate one of the problems with making hard content. For your group Bonekeep was great and hard and fun, but Waking Rune was a miserable slaughterfest.

So I have a question for you, and anybody else as well:

Would you prefer to see occasional hard content, with the understanding that sometimes you'll get wtfbbqpwned no matter how optimized/prepared you are. Or would you prefer to keep the content more managable, to where it can provide an interesting challenge to fairly average characters and never provide a mechanical challenge to optimized groups?

I see no way to make hard content actually hard without making it unreasonably overwhelming for even strong groups on occasion.

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.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Thanks.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dennis Baker wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:

I dont know that I like the idea of electronic chronicles in place of the paper ones being distriubted. I wont go so far as to say I think it's a bad idea, but it would need some good way of implementning it, otherwise how would you handle someone who needs the chronicle in the middle of a con or multi-slot game day because they need to level up and buy ome gear.

Sure, the organizer could just bring a printer to print them out, but then why not just have them all printed beforehand like we do now?

I'd like to see the option out there, I think, but not that it becomes the default method or a required method. :/

Most games take place in locations where there are limited time slots and all that paperwork cuts into the time it takes to game. Then the GM has to go home, sign into Paizo, and do more paperwork. If there were a nice mobile friendly check-in page where you could report this stuff, it would eliminate all that repetitive BS. All those pointless paper chronicles and paper reporting sheets which get lost, would be done. Reporting would be more accurate and timely. It also gives players a single place where they can keep track of their character and eliminate stupid math errors and 'forgotten' conditions gained.

For the gamers who don't have smartphones, tablets, or laptops (we're mostly geeks aren't we? how many is that?), GMs can hand out paper chronicles.

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.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
That said, I tried to find ye olde four year old or so thread and failed utterly. I did, however, find several in the rules and pfs forums where the use of boon companion with paladin class is mentioned and paizo staff haven't said, in any of these posts, that the paladin class didn't apply. In one pfs one (one of the ones asking about eidolons), Josh stated that "paladins, rangers, druids, etc. all have animals that count as animal companions (but summoners don't)". I'll try to paste them below with links. Sometimes I can get it right and sometimes I screw the links up...apologies in advance if I screw them up.
It's not possible for there to be a main FAQ on this feat, as it's not in one of the core books. Sean Reynolds actually mentions this in one of the posts. It might be good to get it added to the society faq if the intent is still the same (anyone who has a mount or companion that "functions as a druid's animal companion" can use the feat) just to rule out confusion?

Anyway, the link I was able to find is here

Another one is here

Another one is here

The last one is here

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

adding a Bestiary feat to an animal companion that doesn't already get access to that Bestiary feat based on the animal companion write up in either the CRB or the additional animal companions in Bestiary 2 and 3 that are legal, is not ok.

In other words, if you take Lion, and in the animal companion write-up in the CRB, it says it gets Grab and Pounce at 7th level, that's the only Bestiary feats/abilities that your animal companion can take.

Because in general, the Bestiary feats are not legal.

Unless access is granted through another legal source (like the list of feats available to animal companions in the core rulebook).

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ability to take extra channel more than once.
Or a boon that gives extra channels.
After a certain point, it's really hard to get more.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually use an old LG item tracking sheet to keep track of expendables. But I do write everything that I buy on my chronicle.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
Oh, well. Just thought I'd say it again.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love how responsive the staff is.
I also love that they actually seem to care about our opinions and often factor them into decisions for the campaign as a whole.

The Exchange

15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alorha wrote:

You don't even need the greater restoration. There's no such thing as negative levels from being raised in PFS.

Basically the different tiers of Rezzing exist only to counter the horrible, horrible things that might happen to a body.

And yes, at lower level play, a raise is almost always enough. Then death effects start being seen more frequently. Undead with create spawn. Etc. You need a Rez for those.

Then you start to have some adventures where the loss condition is "the body is gone forever... it's not on golarion. There are only a few of those, but they exist. As does disintegration. True rez is rare, but a retired PC will need a couple of post-12 modules under his belt before he can afford it (from PP anyway), and post-12 modules are the things I could see calling for True Rez.

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:
he can be raised by a PC
of appropriate class and level that’s seated at his table
(paying all expected costs), or he can be raised by an
NPC in an appropriately-sized settlement (see Chapter 8,
“Purchasing Spellcasting Services”), or he can be raised
by his faction if he has sufficient PA (see Chapter 11). PCs
brought back from the dead in Pathfinder Society suffer
no energy drain if brought back through raise dead. This
is different than how raise dead is normally handled—see
page 329 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

From 4.0 guide:
The basic
rule for Pathfinder Society is that if a PC dies during the
course of a scenario, he can be raised by a PC of appropriate
class and level seated at his table (paying all expected
costs), or he can be raised by an NPC in an appropriately
sized settlement (see “Purchasing Spellcasting Services”),
or he can be raised by his faction if he has sufficient PA.
If a PC cannot be raised from the dead during or after
the scenario in which it died, that PC is dead and removed
from play.