Search Posts
I would agree with submit2me, in that the "this" in "this weapon property" applies to the weapon itself and not the general usage of the ability, so using one from each weapon would be perfectly valid. As a side note, skip the +1 on the amulet, since you don't need it for the ability. ;)
My usual interpretation of the ridiculous (in pseudo-reality) valuation for scenarios is that the greedy, rapacious, self-serving, ..., cheating, barbarous Pathfinder Society basically just robs its employees at the end of any given scenario. "Thanks for bringing us this stuff. Here's your 5% cut. You can buy it back from us at book, since we're feeling generous." I usually allow my players to sell all loot and use all coin immediately within the scenario when they receive it. I then get the pleasure of shaking out their pockets when they complete their mission. Just have them keep track of what they spend, and if whatever remains is still more than the module lets you keep (and it almost invariably is) then just shake 'em down to the cap at the end. Excuses:
Spoiler: I get that this is a security measure of sorts to prevent cheating and provide "fairness" (o_O), and this is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I'm just not a fan of the Greyhawk sheets (unless they're simply more evidence that the PFS is completely and irredeemably evil, which admittedly would be brilliantly meta.)
I'm afraid I have to agree with Doug. I'm prepping this scenario for a group that will abandon a faction mission at the merest hint of conflict, and the Andoran and Chelaxian missions are worded seemingly to encourage PvP. Spoiler:
Handout #2, the supposed goal for the Chelaxians, reads as follows:
The faction mission asks the Chelaxian character to acquire proof of a successful summoning. 'creation' of more monsters implies constructs more than summoning (not that the cultists are doing any summoning anyways), and 'how to cage one' is so vague that it could mean anything. I don't see how anyone could assume that this would properly fulfill the requirements. Handout #5, however, specifically mentions the summoning and that it was a success. As the Andoran mission requires you to find and KEEP all proof that Algrim's excesses lead him to ruin, they clearly require Handout #5 as well, since it blatantly states the above. It is also possible that an Andoran character may believe that the evidence of the headless corpses should be removed. I'm either going to rewrite the Chelaxian faction mission, or simply tell my player that his character is currently holding his faction mission requirement. My proposed rewrite: Spoiler: Her Majestrix's Most Loyal Servant, ... Bring me any proof..Removed I wish to know the status of this summoned being; if the summoning was successful, discover what the creature has been up to and if anyone has taken an interest in it. Infernal beings, like infernal pleasures, should be the sole domain of Cheliax... and those who serve her.
I <3 Action Points!
Neither of these results is really what I like about Action Points. I like the idea of APs as the character really struggling towards, as blargney said, a goal that is important to them that takes sacrifice to achieve. For the same reasons, I wouldn't be as strong a supporter of APs per scenario or before the roll. I like the mental picture of a hero struggling to succeed, realizing he's not quite there, and then pulling closer in a final burst.
Would it be possible to acquire the newest version? I just repersonalized my copy, and the error is still there. Not only that, but the majority of the stat blocks are incorrect. I've rewritten Snarl's stat block (as it happens to be the most relevant to combat) below to help GMs who might not have as much free time on their hands as I do. ^_^ Details: Spoiler: Init: +4 (Dex +1, no II) --> Init: +1 AC : 17 base (Dex is +1 not +3) --> 15 (+1 Dex, +1 Nat, +3 Arm)
HP : 37 (2d8+3 + 2d10+3) --> +3 over 2 levels is impossible.
Fort: +8 --> +9 (+3 Con, +3 Fighter, +3 Gnoll)
Melee: Whip +8 --> +9 (Str +4, BAB +3, Mwk +1, WF +1) d3+4* nl
Note here that Snarl's Strength is 19 (+4) and that Greataxes are 2HW and thus add 1.5x Str bonus to damage. Also, it looks like the Mwk bonuses were not applied. The tactics are cool, but Trip can't move people from the square they're in, and thus can't actually dump people in the water. I'm planning to get around this by saying the many plank bridges between the ship and the dock are very shaky and unreliable looking, so if a character falls they might take out that section. Grapple check: +8 --> +7 (Str +4, BAB +3) Feats: EWP(Whip), Improved Trip, Combat Expertise*, WF(Whip) Hank wrote that the feats should be rearranged, but actually, Snarl should have an additional feat.
The above, with the suggested raise of Snarl's Int to 13, fixes his complaint. Skills: Listen +5, Profession(Sailor) +4, Spot +5 With Snarl's new Int bonus, he should have 4 more skill points. I recommend Climb, Balance, or Use Rope, since those seem to me to be appropriate sailing skills. I'll use Balance +3 (4x0.5 skill, +1 Dex) He should also have an additional language. The sailors speak Katapeshi, so that makes sense to me. Snarl's new stat block (according to me) looks like: Foreman Snarl Sorehackle
Psh. I'm having way too much fun to drop out completely. I just meant the current dungeon crawl. d4 damage and a +3 to hit probably isn't helping much anyways. :) I think I was as shocked by the actions of the other characters as anything, but the shock's worn off a bit now. I still have some moral qualms about our activities, but I'll bring those up in game.
I wanted to clarify a few things, as Siolin's player. As tbug mentioned, I started the encounter with an attempt to find Rolth. SEVEN rolls of 6 or less later (and the darn sixes would have succeeded, if I hadn't been in a hurry), I had made no progress and bowed to inevitability. My post here was partially a way of venting my angst at how terrible my rolls were, and partially a way of warning my DM, tbug, that my character had some serious issues with what we were doing, and might consider bowing out completely. I have considered the problem that you mentioned, Fox, but decided to continue this character anyways for two reasons. Firstly, that I enjoy destroying plot. It's a bad habit, but whenever I can do something that makes boxed text completely irrelevant I get a little surge of glee. Secondly, I have an idea of how Siolin will develop, and my original plan was to make him an indirect combatant, though I'm now reconsidering. The problem I'm finding with this particular encounter has nothing to do with a dislike of combat, however. The problem is, that if you remove a D&D mindset from the equation, what we are doing is blatantly evil. The other characters even coup de graced what could be considered a specially imported citizen of Korvosa! Besides the D&D law that states raising undead is evil (and note that being evil is not even discouraged in Korvosa), we have NO evidence that this guy has done ANYTHING wrong. Regardless, we've invaded his living space (squatter or not), murdered his guards (self-defense doesn't count when WE'RE the ones invading), and done a host of other objectively terrible things. Siolin's not Good, but he's having a serious moral crisis. My character leaving now will have a negative effect on party cohesion for a long time to come, which is the only reason I'm sticking around, but I'm not sure how long even that can hold me. I'm frankly stumped. |
