>>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 6,833 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:

I'll answer the addendum first--a shield bash is a melee attack, so that potential infinite loop could definitely happen. That one seems clearcut.

As to the original question--I like this one. It's tough! It clearly isn't C, since you might score a critical hit without confirming at all. I think B is the most direct reading of the text but A makes the most sense in terms of adjudication--you might have a much higher or lower enhancement bonus on the shield compared to the qualifying attack after all, or other effects that it would be highly odd to add or ignore For instance, with B, do you apply the +20 to hit from a true strike that affected the qualifying attack? If so, you are in the extremely odd situation that you've applied that +20 to hit on the follow-up even though the spell itself is expended, so you don't get the other effect of ignoring concealment, having essentially decomposed the spell, which I had always considered a single immutable unit, in a way that I've never even considered possible.

So I would probably go with A as least likely to lead to weird corner cases, but I think B is a solid reading (and the most direct one) as well.

Thanks, as always, for the thoughtful response. I was hung up on the weirdness of differing enhancement bonuses (trying to take advantage of Shield Master, after all!) and Critical Focus, and I hadn't thought of the case of no confirmation roll or the more interesting true strike. Very neat. I lean towards (B) just because of simplicity of adjudication (no need to calculate attack bonuses on-the-fly), but I definitely agree that (A) is the one that seems to make the most sense.

In any case, thought you might like to know that this came up as a follow up to your comments in the Slayer blog thread. Gave me the idea to try a sword and shield slayer, since I've always liked the idea of sword and shield but been seduced by two-handing's higher DPR and to see if I could mitigate any AC advantage the Fighter might have v. the Slayer. Result: when plotting a sword and shield Slayer, as far as I can tell, even the most straightforward build beats the Falchion Fighter on both AC and pulls even on DPR, though with the serious limitation that it needs the sneak attack. (At least comparing at lvl 11, since I'd use this guy for PFS.)

But, the Slayer's looking like a *wonderfully* fun class to play, despite the sad reality of the poor fighter in comparison. :-P

Silver Crusade

Last Off Topic Missive:
Sorry to go further off-topic. But since I made that statement late last night, I've conducted a more careful analysis and would like to rescind my earlier worry that the Slayer clearly surpasses the Fighter as a melee warrior, at least on this one comparison. I've conducted a more careful analysis today and the results aren't as disparate as I had feared. The comparison is modeled on Cheapy's excellent CRB-only Fighter data (I follow his reasons for sticking to CRB), though I recreated the build to double-check the WBL and see what other fun feats the Fighter would have beyond pure DPR.

NB this Slayer is deliberately not super-optimized for dpr. He's pretty good at it, but I just picked the guy I'd want to play and went with it. He could do better on dpr if I pushed a bit. The main one here would be using the shield as the primary weapon, and grabbing a kukri for the one off-hand attack—but I wanted to try the more "straightforward" build first.

CRB-only falchion Fighter v. "CRB-only" sword and shield Slayer. (Except for Slayer class and weapon & shield Ranger style, all options were from the CRB.) 15/14/13/12/10/8. Both pick up Iron Will as soon as possible, Slayer grabs Trapfinding. Other non-damage options get in line.

Levels: Compared at lvls 1, 4, 7, 11.

Equipment: Both builds used standard WBL table and purchased according to the following constraints. 10% WBL written off as "miscellaneous," purchase ring of sustenance and handy haversack when possible; target AC of 15+lvl; cloak of resistance around 3rd/6th/9th; belt +2 around 4th, increased after weapon hits +3; boots of speed around 11th; everything else into melee weapons.

Results.

* Lvl 1: Fighter is slightly ahead on dpr.

* Lvl 4: Fighter is slightly ahead on dpr, Slayer pulls slightly ahead when the comparison assumes each is flanking (hence, sneak attack). Fighter has +1 AC and +1 Will on the Slayer.

* Lvl 7: Fighter is slightly ahead on dpr. Slayer pulls slightly ahead when the comparison assumes each is flanking (hence, sneak attack). Fighter has +1 AC on the Slayer. NB that Slayer has Shield Slam at this point, so his DPR will increase in those situations he's able to use that to good effect.

* Lvl 11: Fighter is significantly ahead on dpr, though Slayer pulls slightly ahead when the comparison assumes each is flanking (hence, sneak attack). Fighter has +1 Will on the Slayer, Slayer has +2 AC on the Fighter. NB, Slayer still has Shield Slam.

FINAL: the Slayer, even not super optimized, does quite well. That Shield Slam and Bashing Finish look fun! And he'll have more skill points, favored target, and trapfinding to contribute outside of combat. But the Fighter does quite well for himself, and has a number of useful not-just-numbers feats that the Slayer doesn't have room for: Blind Fight, Combat Reflexes, Disruptive, Skill Focus (UMD), Stand Still.

Sure, this comparison is limited. Give the Fighter gloves of dueling, see what the ACG has to offer each class, try a more damage-optimized Slayer ... But nevertheless, I've got to rescind my earlier worry, and say that the Fighter's doing fine, at least as a melee combatant and at the level of this comparison, though I'd still probably rather play a Slayer for a non-magical melee-type, for all the other goodies.

Designer

Joe M. wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...

Yep! That's about what I was getting as well when attempting to shore up the slayer's defense by using a more defensive build. If the fighter also went sword and board, the slayer would have a clearer offensive advantage, but the fighter's AC should be way higher, rather than slightly higher shrinking to slightly lower.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeM wrote:
Last Off Topic Missive:

I was thinking about your spoiler's name for a while. The funny thing is, this is the off-topic forum, so is that post off-topic of off-topic by being on-topic? But would that make it off-topic and thus on-topic? My head hurts.

Contributor

Assuming you've been keeping up with D&D Next, are there any mechanics that you've thought are interesting?

For me, I'd have to say that making iterative attacks a class feature is interesting, as is how D&D Next handles cantrips. (I.E. Higher-power at-will attacks.)

Designer

Alexander Augunas wrote:

Assuming you've been keeping up with D&D Next, are there any mechanics that you've thought are interesting?

For me, I'd have to say that making iterative attacks a class feature is interesting, as is how D&D Next handles cantrips. (I.E. Higher-power at-will attacks.)

On reading, there were some things that struck me as interesting, and I'm looking forward to an upcoming lunch game with the Starter Set. I'm a high wisdom dwarf cleric who doesn't trust my intuition and who is secretly worried that the gods just don't care about us at all or influence our world in any way (that's my flaw). It's going to be fun to play with the other Paizoites for sure!

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
Is that post off-topic of off-topic by being on-topic?

Hah! Yep, I think this is what I was thinking. Following forum categorization, "on topic" would be basically anything that falls in Rules, Advice, Golarion, or any specific product discussion forum. "Rules & Build & Setting discussion." So by extending the build discussion, I strayed onto "on topic" and "off-offTopic-topic." Or something. :-)

***

Quick follow-up and then a question. I'd thought that I might eke out a few more dpr from switching to the shield as my "primary" weapon, but it turns out the difference isn't significant enough to give up the benefits of having the scimitar as primary. (Since I don't care to go into dual-shielding silliness.)

Question! Shield Master:

Shield Master wrote:
Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.

I'm very curious about this part of the feat. I think I have it figured, but check me here.

First, take the basic case. I have a +3 shield/+1 shield spike, but once I grab Shield Master, I attack with it as if it were a +3 shield/+3* shield spike.

Question: But does this combine with non-number-enhancement weapon enchantments?

For example, assume I have a +3 shield/+1 flaming shield spike. Once I grab Shield Master, which of the following holds?

(A) I "lose" the flaming property if I want to use Shield Master to use the higher armor enhancement as a weapon enhancement, so that it acts as a +3 shield/+3* shield spike.

(B) Only the number-enhancement gets swapped, so that it acts as a +3 shield/+3* flaming shield spike.

I take it that (B) the latter is true. Because the feat lets you attack "as if [the armor enhancement on the shield] was [sic] a weapon enhancement. Since same-type bonuses don't stack, the higher one applies and I would attack as if with a +3 enhancement weapon. But nothing in that interaction would cause the flaming property to stop working for me, so I'd come out of it with an effective +3 shield/+3* flaming shield spike.

Sound okay? Or am I missing something / trying to get too much out of an already excellent feat?

Designer

It seems like B would be true, but keep in mind that this could push you into the "You can't go over +10 equivalent" ruling some day if you grab too many specials on the spikes.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
It seems like B would be true, but keep in mind that this could push you into the "You can't go over +10 equivalent" ruling some day if you grab too many specials on the spikes.

Hmm. Thanks for the reminder! Guess I had assumed that a shield enchanted as both would have a +10/+10 limit instead of a single +10 for both types? I haven't played high enough that this limit has ever come into play, though, so I'd never given it any real thought.

Question: With a double weapon, do you have +10/+10, one for each end, or a single +10? A quick look on my phone isn't finding me the rule here.


Thanks for your last answer, Mark, I've got a new question for you though. I waffled between tossing this at you or JJ, but it seemed closer to a rules question, even though it overlaps with a setting one.

Basically...do elementals follow the rules for an element of their type?

The main example is a fire elemental. Some believe that since a fire elemental is composed of fire in its description, it therefore follows all of the rules for fire (it gives off light as a fire of its size, it sets ablaze anything it TOUCHES, not just attacks with its Burn ability, it "spreads" like an unconstrained fire, setting adjacent squares on fire if they contain flammable materials, and so on).

To a lesser extent, this applies to Water Elementals, some holding the position that it drenches anything it touches, creating mud where it moves, cushioning a fall from a great height as if falling into a body of water, etc.

I have no idea how this is meant to apply to an Earth or Air elemental.

Anywho...what are your thoughts on the matter?

Designer

Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It seems like B would be true, but keep in mind that this could push you into the "You can't go over +10 equivalent" ruling some day if you grab too many specials on the spikes.

Hmm. Thanks for the reminder! Guess I had assumed that a shield enchanted as both would have a +10/+10 limit instead of a single +10 for both types? I haven't played high enough that this limit has ever come into play, though, so I'd never given it any real thought.

Question: With a double weapon, do you have +10/+10, one for each end, or a single +10? A quick look on my phone isn't finding me the rule here.

Oh you can totally have a +10 on the defensive side and a +10 on the offensive side. You just can't have, say, a +1 holy bane(evil outsider) menacing vicious ghost touch receiving a +5 enhancement bonus to become a +11 equivalent. This came up long long ago over paladin weapon divine bond, back in the days before PDT where Sean just answered it.

Designer

Rynjin wrote:

Thanks for your last answer, Mark, I've got a new question for you though. I waffled between tossing this at you or JJ, but it seemed closer to a rules question, even though it overlaps with a setting one.

Basically...do elementals follow the rules for an element of their type?

The main example is a fire elemental. Some believe that since a fire elemental is composed of fire in its description, it therefore follows all of the rules for fire (it gives off light as a fire of its size, it sets ablaze anything it TOUCHES, not just attacks with its Burn ability, it "spreads" like an unconstrained fire, setting adjacent squares on fire if they contain flammable materials, and so on).

To a lesser extent, this applies to Water Elementals, some holding the position that it drenches anything it touches, creating mud where it moves, cushioning a fall from a great height as if falling into a body of water, etc.

I have no idea how this is meant to apply to an Earth or Air elemental.

Anywho...what are your thoughts on the matter?

I would say based on my reading that while any mechanical effects other than the ones specifically stated in the statblock are up to the individual GM to adjudicate this, the elementals are indeed composed of their respective element, based on the text of elemental in the Bestiary and UM, plus the individual elemental descriptions. The description of the fire elemental even mentions tongues of flame licking out for nearby inflammable materials, and I remember in at least one AP there's an encounter involving a building that was being burned down by a bunch of Large fire elementals. Presumably the fire elemental could "behave" if it wanted to and keep its fire tendrils to itself by essentially tiptoeing in between inflammable objects, but based on the description of binding in UM, it seems like surrounding it with that stuff and asking it not to burn them might kind of be like inviting an alcoholic to hang out alone in your wine cellar full of high quality alcohol while instructing them not to drink anything.


Does Sleeves of Many Garments actually change into another outfit or does it just appear to? I.e., if you use it to turn into a cold weather outfit, are you actually protected from cold weather or do you just create an illusion making it look like you are?

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It seems like B would be true, but keep in mind that this could push you into the "You can't go over +10 equivalent" ruling some day if you grab too many specials on the spikes.

Hmm. Thanks for the reminder! Guess I had assumed that a shield enchanted as both would have a +10/+10 limit instead of a single +10 for both types? I haven't played high enough that this limit has ever come into play, though, so I'd never given it any real thought.

Question: With a double weapon, do you have +10/+10, one for each end, or a single +10? A quick look on my phone isn't finding me the rule here.

Oh you can totally have a +10 on the defensive side and a +10 on the offensive side. You just can't have, say, a +1 holy bane(evil outsider) menacing vicious ghost touch receiving a +5 enhancement bonus to become a +11 equivalent. This came up long long ago over paladin weapon divine bond, back in the days before PDT where Sean just answered it.

Oh, okay. That makes much more sense, then. Thanks!

Designer

137ben wrote:
Does Sleeves of Many Garments actually change into another outfit or does it just appear to? I.e., if you use it to turn into a cold weather outfit, are you actually protected from cold weather or do you just create an illusion making it look like you are?

Well it transforms, that's for sure, since the item says it does, but since transform can mean many things, it's unclear in the item's description whether that transformation is merely an appearance, like the hat of disguise that the sleeves seem to be based off, or a fully functional transmutation, or something in between with illusion [shadow] subschool stuff. Based on being 1/9th the price of hat of disguise, it seems to me that changing your outfit and not your body is probably about 1/9th as good as changing both (plus it's on a less powerful item slot I guess), so the mere appearance version would be most in line with the price. Even with a full illusory ruling, you can duplicate a royal outfit except under heavy scrutiny, which is already worth the cost of the item. For PCs who enjoy different outfits, I would buy it at that price for that effect by level 5 or so every time, unless I was already planning on a hat of disguise anyway, since I tend to buy those often with certain types of characters.

So I think it's up to your GM to decide, as the wording doesn't come to our rescue and force it one way or the other (despite the use of an illusion spell as a prereq, that isn't conclusive, as prereqs tend not to be too scientific), but the pricing seems to indicate the transformation is illusory to me. I wouldn't think a GM was being outrageous if they ruled any of the three ways (functional and transmutation, appearance and illusion, or functional and illusion [shadow]) though.

But clearly, the real question is, can it turn into a royal outfit with heavy cuffs spun out of mithral and you then use the cuffs as an improvised mithral bludgeoning weapon against werewolves? :D


Only if the mithral cuffs count as armor spikes.

Designer

Kudaku wrote:
Only if the mithral cuffs count as armor spikes.

Well then that wouldn't even need to be improvised!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Thanks for your last answer, Mark, I've got a new question for you though. I waffled between tossing this at you or JJ, but it seemed closer to a rules question, even though it overlaps with a setting one.

Basically...do elementals follow the rules for an element of their type?

The main example is a fire elemental. Some believe that since a fire elemental is composed of fire in its description, it therefore follows all of the rules for fire (it gives off light as a fire of its size, it sets ablaze anything it TOUCHES, not just attacks with its Burn ability, it "spreads" like an unconstrained fire, setting adjacent squares on fire if they contain flammable materials, and so on).

To a lesser extent, this applies to Water Elementals, some holding the position that it drenches anything it touches, creating mud where it moves, cushioning a fall from a great height as if falling into a body of water, etc.

I have no idea how this is meant to apply to an Earth or Air elemental.

Anywho...what are your thoughts on the matter?

I would say based on my reading that while any mechanical effects other than the ones specifically stated in the statblock are up to the individual GM to adjudicate this, the elementals are indeed composed of their respective element, based on the text of elemental in the Bestiary and UM, plus the individual elemental descriptions. The description of the fire elemental even mentions tongues of flame licking out for nearby inflammable materials, and I remember in at least one AP there's an encounter involving a building that was being burned down by a bunch of Large fire elementals. Presumably the fire elemental could "behave" if it wanted to and keep its fire tendrils to itself by essentially tiptoeing in between inflammable objects, but based on the description of binding in UM, it seems like surrounding it with that stuff and asking it not to burn them might kind of be like inviting an alcoholic to hang out alone in your wine cellar full of high quality alcohol while instructing them not to drink anything.

It just seems odd to me that a creature comprised entirely of an element has no control over what it burns. It has enough control over itself to shape itself into any form it chooses, but not enough to avoid setting a piece of paper on fire?

And that makes fire elementals much more dangerous than what they're generally listed as in the bestiary. Unless I'm mistaken, by the time they reach Huge size you'd need to start making saves to avoid catching on fire just by being NEAR one.

Would this also mean that Earth elementals are vulnerable to Stone Shape and Flesh to Stone? And if so, what effects does it have (lost DR, removed ability to Earth Glide, perhaps...RAW nothing, but its powers seem to come FROM being comprised of the element)?

Last question I'll ask on the subject to avoid dragging this out.


What was it like, the first few times you had a Pathfinder gaming session with actual Paizo employees? (If you've played with them before you were hired on- what was it like before you were hired, and what was it like after?)

Designer

Rynjin wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Thanks for your last answer, Mark, I've got a new question for you though. I waffled between tossing this at you or JJ, but it seemed closer to a rules question, even though it overlaps with a setting one.

Basically...do elementals follow the rules for an element of their type?

The main example is a fire elemental. Some believe that since a fire elemental is composed of fire in its description, it therefore follows all of the rules for fire (it gives off light as a fire of its size, it sets ablaze anything it TOUCHES, not just attacks with its Burn ability, it "spreads" like an unconstrained fire, setting adjacent squares on fire if they contain flammable materials, and so on).

To a lesser extent, this applies to Water Elementals, some holding the position that it drenches anything it touches, creating mud where it moves, cushioning a fall from a great height as if falling into a body of water, etc.

I have no idea how this is meant to apply to an Earth or Air elemental.

Anywho...what are your thoughts on the matter?

I would say based on my reading that while any mechanical effects other than the ones specifically stated in the statblock are up to the individual GM to adjudicate this, the elementals are indeed composed of their respective element, based on the text of elemental in the Bestiary and UM, plus the individual elemental descriptions. The description of the fire elemental even mentions tongues of flame licking out for nearby inflammable materials, and I remember in at least one AP there's an encounter involving a building that was being burned down by a bunch of Large fire elementals. Presumably the fire elemental could "behave" if it wanted to and keep its fire tendrils to itself by essentially tiptoeing in between inflammable objects, but based on the description of binding in UM, it seems like surrounding it with that stuff and asking it not to burn them might kind of be like inviting an alcoholic to hang out alone in your
...

Stone shape doesn't affect creatures, but there is precedent in horrid wilting for spells to tell you what to do for creatures made of certain elements. As for large fires being a danger at distance, I checked the environment rules and I'm not seeing it in the rules. True, it's realistic. In fact, the whole Star Wars lava duel thing is off due to the fact that it doesn't matter if you fall into the stuff; proximity is bad enough. But fire in the game doesn't really follow our world's normal laws of convection and entropy.

Designer

Mystically Inclined wrote:
What was it like, the first few times you had a Pathfinder gaming session with actual Paizo employees? (If you've played with them before you were hired on- what was it like before you were hired, and what was it like after?)

As it turns out, my first game with Paizo employees since being hired is probably next Tuesday. Ongoing campaigns have their own crews, so it comes down to joining new groups as they start off.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
JoeM wrote:
Last Off Topic Missive:
I was thinking about your spoiler's name for a while. The funny thing is, this is the off-topic forum, so is that post off-topic of off-topic by being on-topic? But would that make it off-topic and thus on-topic? My head hurts.

I think off-topic in Off-Topic is more often like a musical that's "off-off-Broadway".

Designer

Vic Wertz wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
JoeM wrote:
Last Off Topic Missive:
I was thinking about your spoiler's name for a while. The funny thing is, this is the off-topic forum, so is that post off-topic of off-topic by being on-topic? But would that make it off-topic and thus on-topic? My head hurts.
I think off-topic in Off-Topic is more often like a musical that's "off-off-Broadway".

Hmm, and since that doesn't put it "on Broadway", then that means that Joe was not in fact off-topic in off-topic. Fascinating, thanks Vic!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Bonjour Mark,

Just stumbled across this thread thanks to Rynjin and our little disagreement about hugging fire elementals. Two things:

Recently you linked to the "countless eyes" spell (a new one for me). Shouldn't this spell really have a disadvantage of making you unable to avert your eyes from gaze attacks, like the robe of eyes it seems to be based on?

Do you use firearms in your home games? I'm really tempted to use them, but leery of the fast reload rates. Reloading muzzle-loaders in between multiple iterative attacks just seems too mind-bending, regardless of how many special gunslinging feats you have. I know it's fantasy, but still.

Cheers, --- Wheldrake in France

Designer

Wheldrake wrote:

Bonjour Mark,

Just stumbled across this thread thanks to Rynjin and our little disagreement about hugging fire elementals. Two things:

Recently you linked to the "countless eyes" spell (a new one for me). Shouldn't this spell really have a disadvantage of making you unable to avert your eyes from gaze attacks, like the robe of eyes it seems to be based on?

Do you use firearms in your home games? I'm really tempted to use them, but leery of the fast reload rates. Reloading muzzle-loaders in between multiple iterative attacks just seems too mind-bending, regardless of how many special gunslinging feats you have. I know it's fantasy, but still.

Cheers, --- Wheldrake in France

Salut Wheldrake,

Fire elementals need hugs too! Just remember to bring your resist energy.

For countless eyes, honestly that would make lots of sense for all-around vision in general (that you could close all the eyes or otherwise and be blind for a round to avoid the gaze, but that you couldn't really avert it), but the spell basically just gives all-around vision, which doesn't add that caveat. I think there was a spell or power in 3.5 that gave all-around vision and stopped you from averting your gaze. I remember because the book had a picture of the guy who cast it and a medusa nearby, and the guy was like "Well s~~~!"

As for firearms--in our home games in Golarion, all the characters are aware that there are guns in Alkenstar (in our home games not in Golarion, only the modern ones have had guns so far, and those were in RPG systems other than Pathfinder). But since none of our APs have come close to Alkenstar or ever been reasonable to have a PC gunslinger from Alkenstar, we dodged a bullet there, if you'll excuse the pun. If we ever have a gunslinger in a home game, there's a small toolbox of houserules that I am considering applying in some combination, but I'd need to run more math on them. I have run math on the out-of-the-box gunslinger and its archetypes and discovered that they do hugely more damage than an archer does after one of the single-digit levels, though I can't remember which (I want to say it's 8 or 9--shortly after getting Dex to damage, they have to make up for the archer's Manyshot). And remember that doing more damage in the math (which includes misfires) actually means that they do WAY more damage on a typical round, enough to make up for the rounds with a misfire on the first attack while still doing more average damage.

C'est dommage que la balance soit de travers. C'est dommage aussi que j'aie besoin de utiliser subjonctif après tant d'années!

Amitiés,
Mark


Hi Mark!

Have you noticed that the date for latest FAQ update of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is missing?

I also want to say I think your blog posts are great!

Designer

Zark wrote:

Hi Mark!

Have you noticed that the date for latest FAQ update of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is missing?

I also want to say I think your blog posts are great!

That's pretty odd. I remember seeing the date on there a few weeks ago.

Thanks, hope you enjoy my Tuesday blog post on the hunter!


I’m sure I will. I’m looking forward to it. :)


Do you have a favorite PFS Scenario?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
What was it like, the first few times you had a Pathfinder gaming session with actual Paizo employees? (If you've played with them before you were hired on- what was it like before you were hired, and what was it like after?)
As it turns out, my first game with Paizo employees since being hired is probably next Tuesday. Ongoing campaigns have their own crews, so it comes down to joining new groups as they start off.

It's Tuesday! :D

So what did you play, and what was it like being at the table?

Designer

Zark wrote:
I’m sure I will. I’m looking forward to it. :)

Well, how was it? :)

Designer

Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
Do you have a favorite PFS Scenario?

Tough call. I really like Eyes of the Then Part 1: Requiem of the Red Raven by Erik Mona, and the elimination of that scenario's awesome Cheliax faction mission is one of the saddest things to come out of the cool new faction stuff. Sometimes it really depends on your table. I had a great table that made The Blakros Matrimony by Thurston Hillman a highlight, and Library of the Lion by Kyle Elliott and John Compton is quite fun. In terms of interesting fights, generally scenarios with Hard Modes are best (or Bonekeep which is only Hard Mode). Speaking of Hard Mode, Waking Rune and that whole arc were pretty cool. Really, I guess the bottom line is that I like a lot of different scenarios. If you asked me on a different day, I might have named a different list.

Designer

Mystically Inclined wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
What was it like, the first few times you had a Pathfinder gaming session with actual Paizo employees? (If you've played with them before you were hired on- what was it like before you were hired, and what was it like after?)
As it turns out, my first game with Paizo employees since being hired is probably next Tuesday. Ongoing campaigns have their own crews, so it comes down to joining new groups as they start off.

It's Tuesday! :D

So what did you play, and what was it like being at the table?

It's being delayed due to Gen Con rush.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Hey Mark, now that ACG class previews are done, I've got a question: I've had a concept rattling around in the old noggin for a while, for a guy who fights from the back of a flying mount. Since playing a character who isn't the character you want to play isn't all that fun, getting a functional flying mount at an early level is a high priority. (This probably means I'll need to play a Small character, unless there's a flying companion that hits Large at 4th rather than 7th level.)

So, in your opinion, which class/archetype (including, but not limited to, the ACG) would be my best bet for some sort of skyknight?

Designer

Jiggy wrote:

Hey Mark, now that ACG class previews are done, I've got a question: I've had a concept rattling around in the old noggin for a while, for a guy who fights from the back of a flying mount. Since playing a character who isn't the character you want to play isn't all that fun, getting a functional flying mount at an early level is a high priority. (This probably means I'll need to play a Small character, unless there's a flying companion that hits Large at 4th rather than 7th level.)

So, in your opinion, which class/archetype (including, but not limited to, the ACG) would be my best bet for some sort of skyknight?

I would first caution to be careful with it. Having seen flying mounts at lower levels, they can really throw off the game in unexpected and negative ways if you go ranged. If you go melee it should be mostly OK for most builds.

As to which class, I would say druid or maybe hunter for better weapons and teamwork feats are standbys (I would say if you ride your companion, then hunter's teamwork feats are more useful if you are melee than if you are ranged), but beast rider cavalier is more "knightly" if that's important. Most other classes don't get their companions until later, though that one ranger archetype can be quite powerful once you get the companion.

For non-PFS (where, especially if ranged, the concept may work better anyway since the GM can adjust for it rather than have many scenarios trivialized by a flying archer), there's also 3pp classes like Owen's RGG Dragonrider (which I think is completely on d20pfsrd) which are (assuming you were going to have a flying mount anyway, so overlooking the ways those can cause problems) quite well balanced and let you have a dragon!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mark Seifter wrote:
I would first caution to be careful with it. Having seen flying mounts at lower levels, they can really throw off the game in unexpected and negative ways if you go ranged. If you go melee it should be mostly OK for most builds.

Definitely picturing melee, not ranged. I wanna do mounted charges from the sky. :)

Quote:
As to which class, I would say druid or maybe hunter for better weapons and teamwork feats are standbys (I would say if you ride your companion, then hunter's teamwork feats are more useful if you are melee than if you are ranged), but beast rider cavalier is more "knightly" if that's important. Most other classes don't get their companions until later, though that one ranger archetype can be quite powerful once you get the companion.

I've been wondering whether the hunter might be the answer (companion from level 1, with martial weapons), and really didn't want to go druid (nature theme + no metal armor = concept-wrecking).

Sadly, the Beast Rider cavalier, though otherwise perfect, doesn't allow mounts with fly speeds. :(

Quote:
For non-PFS (where, especially if ranged, the concept may work better anyway since the GM can adjust for it rather than have many scenarios trivialized by a flying archer), there's also 3pp classes like Owen's RGG Dragonrider (which I think is completely on d20pfsrd) which are (assuming you were going to have a flying mount anyway, so overlooking the ways those can cause problems) quite well balanced and let you have a dragon!

Probably should have pointed out it was for PFS.

So maybe hunter, then? There wouldn't happen to be a mounted archetype for slayer, would there?

Designer

Jiggy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would first caution to be careful with it. Having seen flying mounts at lower levels, they can really throw off the game in unexpected and negative ways if you go ranged. If you go melee it should be mostly OK for most builds.

Definitely picturing melee, not ranged. I wanna do mounted charges from the sky. :)

Quote:
As to which class, I would say druid or maybe hunter for better weapons and teamwork feats are standbys (I would say if you ride your companion, then hunter's teamwork feats are more useful if you are melee than if you are ranged), but beast rider cavalier is more "knightly" if that's important. Most other classes don't get their companions until later, though that one ranger archetype can be quite powerful once you get the companion.

I've been wondering whether the hunter might be the answer (companion from level 1, with martial weapons), and really didn't want to go druid (nature theme + no metal armor = concept-wrecking).

Sadly, the Beast Rider cavalier, though otherwise perfect, doesn't allow mounts with fly speeds. :(

Quote:
For non-PFS (where, especially if ranged, the concept may work better anyway since the GM can adjust for it rather than have many scenarios trivialized by a flying archer), there's also 3pp classes like Owen's RGG Dragonrider (which I think is completely on d20pfsrd) which are (assuming you were going to have a flying mount anyway, so overlooking the ways those can cause problems) quite well balanced and let you have a dragon!

Probably should have pointed out it was for PFS.

So maybe hunter, then? There wouldn't happen to be a mounted archetype for slayer, would there?

Ah, beast rider eliminated mounts with fly speeds? Honestly it's not a bad call, for the archery reasons I mentioned. I mean imagine if I designed an ability that replaced animal companion and just gave you a fast fly speed permanently at level 1 and let you ranged full attack while also moving with that fly speed. There's no way that would make it into a final book.

Yeah, hunter sounds like a great choice for you, given it has the weapons and armor you want. When I said that melee is generally not an issue at low levels for most builds, mounted charger with reach weapon and Ride by Attack, along with just in general "Reach weapon + enough greater reach than the opponent" are unfortunately the builds in my mind that aren't members of "most builds". If you go lance, I recommend waiting longer than necessary to get Ride by Attack or just not using it to avoid many situations where your character can "kite" the encounter alone with no risk of being attacked. That way, you get the best of both worlds, playing a cool concept and avoiding some of the potential frustrations. And you can always grab those abilities at higher level when the opposition starts being able to at least have something to do in a game of aerial keepaway! :)


Just a thought- what about the Nature Oracle? I've heard that you can get a good animal companion if you're the right race, and a battle oracle can be pretty knightly.

Designer

Mystically Inclined wrote:
Just a thought- what about the Nature Oracle? I've heard that you can get a good animal companion if you're the right race, and a battle oracle can be pretty knightly.

I think flyers aren't on the right list though.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Actually, and idea just popped to mind of a tengu with Glide and Claws who swoops down on his flying mount, grapples someone, flies high in the air, then dismounts, releases, and glides down while his prey falls...


@Jiggy, could you use Ranger? I believe that's the Sable Company Marine archetype, but renamed for legal reasons.

It's from Inner Sea Combat (a book I don't have). I'm not sure if it's PFS legal, but based off the blurb in additional resources, it seems most everything in ISC is legal for PFS.


Jiggy wrote:
Actually, and idea just popped to mind of a tengu with Glide and Claws who swoops down on his flying mount, grapples someone, flies high in the air, then dismounts, releases, and glides down while his prey falls...

PFS, right?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Cheapy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Actually, and idea just popped to mind of a tengu with Glide and Claws who swoops down on his flying mount, grapples someone, flies high in the air, then dismounts, releases, and glides down while his prey falls...
PFS, right?

Yep. It'd be the only non-cookie-cutter grappler, amirite? ;)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Tels wrote:

@Jiggy, could you use Ranger? I believe that's the Sable Company Marine archetype, but renamed for legal reasons.

It's from Inner Sea Combat (a book I don't have). I'm not sure if it's PFS legal, but based off the blurb in additional resources, it seems most everything in ISC is legal for PFS.

I'm kind of surprised the Sable Company wasn't retconned to be cavaliers.

Shadow Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
Do you have a favorite PFS Scenario?
Tough call. I really like Eyes of the Then Part 1: Requiem of the Red Raven by Erik Mona, and the elimination of that scenario's awesome Cheliax faction mission is one of the saddest things to come out of the cool new faction stuff. Sometimes it really depends on your table. I had a great table that made The Blakros Matrimony by Thurston Hillman a highlight, and Library of the Lion by Kyle Elliott and John Compton is quite fun. In terms of interesting fights, generally scenarios with Hard Modes are best (or Bonekeep which is only Hard Mode). Speaking of Hard Mode, Waking Rune and that whole arc were pretty cool. Really, I guess the bottom line is that I like a lot of different scenarios. If you asked me on a different day, I might have named a different list.

Excellent choices. I just ran Many Fortunes of GMT today, and checked the reviews out afterwards. I noticed yours and thought it was pretty spot-on. Still, is it wrong that I had fun with such a horrible scenario?


Ross Byers wrote:
Tels wrote:

@Jiggy, could you use Ranger? I believe that's the Sable Company Marine archetype, but renamed for legal reasons.

It's from Inner Sea Combat (a book I don't have). I'm not sure if it's PFS legal, but based off the blurb in additional resources, it seems most everything in ISC is legal for PFS.

I'm kind of surprised the Sable Company wasn't retconned to be cavaliers.

I'm not. The Marines as portrayed are lightly armored skirmisher knights that fly on Hippogriffs and patrol the skies and the water ways around Korvosa.

Cavaliers in their heavy armor don't generally make good swimmers, nor do they have the class skills necessary to do so. Sure, an archetype could make it possible, but I think it would need to be an archetype with lots of changes to do it.

Designer

TOZ wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
Do you have a favorite PFS Scenario?
Tough call. I really like Eyes of the Then Part 1: Requiem of the Red Raven by Erik Mona, and the elimination of that scenario's awesome Cheliax faction mission is one of the saddest things to come out of the cool new faction stuff. Sometimes it really depends on your table. I had a great table that made The Blakros Matrimony by Thurston Hillman a highlight, and Library of the Lion by Kyle Elliott and John Compton is quite fun. In terms of interesting fights, generally scenarios with Hard Modes are best (or Bonekeep which is only Hard Mode). Speaking of Hard Mode, Waking Rune and that whole arc were pretty cool. Really, I guess the bottom line is that I like a lot of different scenarios. If you asked me on a different day, I might have named a different list.
Excellent choices. I just ran Many Fortunes of GMT today, and checked the reviews out afterwards. I noticed yours and thought it was pretty spot-on. Still, is it wrong that I had fun with such a horrible scenario?

Not at all! My table when I ran it had fun too, but that's only because I came into it after playing a table with a fair but strict as-written GM, so I had seen the pitfalls of what happens when you run exactly as written instead of improvising a few changes to cause it to react to PC actions that aren't as abominably evil as the scenario assumes. In my playthrough, we were as nice as could be, and things kept attacking us arbitrarily. It did leave us not being murder-hobos, sort of, since every time, we would go to the authorities and report being attacked by these people while we tried to peacefully talk with them. When I ran it, I kept coming up with small story adjustments under the "reward creative solutions" clause to still keep all the encounters while allowing the PCs to feel like they were still having some kind of reaction when they tried to be reasonable.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Bleh. I should have prepped better so the final encounter wasn't "SYSTEM ERROR - PLEASE RESTART"...

Designer

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Bleh. I should have prepped better so the final encounter wasn't "SYSTEM ERROR - PLEASE RESTART"...

Many Misfortunes:
You mentioned your team Bluffed that guy in the scenario thread. When I played it, we tried Diplomacy, since we had already seen the one statuette go berserk and start summoning murder bugs, we basically told the guy that this thing was likely to kill him some day and furthermore that whoever his shady dealer was, they had not only sold him an item that might kill him but a stolen item at that. We promised to dispose of it carefully and not to implicate him in any shady dealings, since he couldn't have known it was stolen. His response was trying to kill us. When I ran it, one person RPed an elaborate distraction of buying the guy's wares while another just stole it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Pretty much my experience yeah. Looking forward to my next run of it where I get a little more creative. :)

251 to 300 of 6,833 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.