0gre's page

Familiar progression is based on caster level, I'm not sure how you would add abilities above and beyond that. I was thinking it would be fun to take infusion and let the familier use your extracts for things like fire breath or even beast shape.

Well the ring is caster level 7 so you blink for seven rounds which means you spend one round of most combats turning blinking on so it's not that amazing.

The difference between orcs and hobgoblins.

One is a commonly used bad-guy, the other is a mostly forgotten race from gaming history.

0gre wrote:

With a bit more thought it's largely size dependent. It's easier to get higher ground on a gnome than a giant. An easy rule of thumb would be to base it on creature size.

Where did you get the DC 20 from?

DC 20 is a 5' vertical jump, appropriate for a size medium creature but your head isn't even level with a giant's head. Size large bipeds I would require a 10' vertical leap (DC 40).

Where? Well I did say 'usually' and 'norm' as 'usually' you are 'normally' fighting medium size creatures. It was a quick answer that anyone who bothers to read the rules would inherently know would be fluid based on several factors. Funny thing, you answered where I got it from right after ....

Using the size is just my personal thoughts on it. The way you said it I got the impression there was a specific rule about it.

Would it not be a horizontal jump?

It is called 'Death from Above" and the benefit is from *higher* ground. How far you jump is irrelevant only height.

With a bit more thought it's largely size dependent. It's easier to get higher ground on a gnome than a giant. An easy rule of thumb would be to base it on creature size.

Where did you get the DC 20 from?

DC 20 is a 5' vertical jump, appropriate for a size medium creature but your head isn't even level with a giant's head. Size large bipeds I would require a 10' vertical leap (DC 40).

He's playing a Kenku (from one of the bestiaries).

Rolling a 1 isn't an auto-fail on skill checks, I think that was true under 3.5 also. It's a common enough house rule that I think many people just assume it's the rule.

I think grick has the right of it... and don't even think it's very ambiguous to be honest.

@BBT — does your GM allow you the normal +1 for attacking from higher ground if you jump on a charge normally? I suspect there is a lot of variance on that. I would probably allow it with a good enough jump check (SWAG — DC 15 or so?).

0gre wrote:

If he's distracted, he can't take 10. :P

Whos aid anything about taking 10? Nearly all of my initial calculations assumed I rolled a ONE.

I was using his math which had DC 50 which requires a 7 on the die for +43.

Your math and various assumptions/rulings seem sound. However, you need to lower all of your proposed DCs b5 due to eagle eyes. I get 50 feet of distance for...

Again you make this incorrect assumption that line of sight doesn't matter.

"You ignore up to –5 in penalties due to distance on visual Perception checks, allowing you..."

Eagle eyes doesn't even work when you are sleeping or when you are 'hearing' a conversation 250 feet away.

If he's distracted, he can't take 10. :P

Grrr, Internet just ate my response. Here is the shortened version. The dwarf sticks up for himself next time it happens and basically says "don't disparage my race it's not warranted" and asks if the elf is capable of keeping his thoughts to himself (or herself).

Handle it in character if possible, but if not then discuss it out of game (it's making the game not fun for the dwarf).

I DM'd such a situation in my most recent game. One player was chiding another in character (all in good fun), but the one being chided took it personally. We discussed it out of game and then worked out an in game solution. Problem resolved!

I think the key is to make it clear out of game that it's no longer fun as you suggest. Often in game things follow. My feeling is if it stays in-game then it's likely not going to be solved.

@Ravingdork — I think you should also keep in mind that 'Perception' is based on sight, sound, and other senses. If a creature is completely out of line of sight, it's entirely reasonable for a GM to assign a circumstance bonus to the DC to pinpoint it similar to the DC for pinpointing an invisible PC.

So a creature that's 200 feet away in a jungle you would have a -20 penalty for distance plus a -20 penalty because you can't see him at all (similar to the penalty for invisibility).

My point with the auto-win statement was that normal encounters can't really compete with RD's skill modifier. I was saying that occasionally it should be challenged since RD took the other post as saying his perception should be shutdown.

That stealth check is not trying hard for you or me, but many GM's could not have countered it.

I just get a little irritated by suggestions that GMs should invent arbitrary limits on a player. I don't think you suggested it but some others in this thread have.

If you want to limit your player's perception scores down to sane levels then tell them they can't take Skill Focus and remove eyes of the eagle or other similar boosters from the game. That way they are at least honestly being nerfed. Tossing in random 'you are confused by chirping birds' effects is just cheep in my opinion.

House rules are cool but be honest and forthright about them. Making them post-facto because one of your PCs is 'too good' isn't fair.

Edit: I think my example of +36 was a pretty basic one, well within the realm of what you might expect an NPC rogue at that level to have. Also, it hasn't been mentioned much in this thread, but there is a -1 per 10 feet of distance penalty to perception.

Best to handle it in character if possible, but out of character if necessary. Good luck!

How exactly would you handle this 'in character'?

IRL people would just tell them to F* off and leave. The dwarf character leaves the group and what?

I suppose as a GM you could be awesome and have the story follow the dwarf, he was the original character.

"Yeah sorry guys, the campaign is sticking with the original members as long as possible and he doesn't want to hang with you any more. If you want to roll up new characters you are welcome."

Dwarf Player — "And no elves. My character has a deep hatred for those bastards for some reason."

Does it result in more fun, and more roleplaying opportunities, for everyone at the table? If so, allow the clever solution.

Does it allow one player to grant another player a Crowning Moment of Awesome? If so, allow the clever solution.

Does it allow one player to hit the "I WIN" button in every single encounter? Allow it once, tell the player it's only going to be allowed once and move on.

Does it result in players getting fewer rewards (or spending more for the same rewards) as the expected amount for that encounter? Do it judiciously, or not at all.

Your job, first and foremost, is to make a fun, enjoyable game for all the players.

So this is my little rant about the "More Fun" mentality.

It's always more fun to win than it is to lose. Every time.

That said, if there is no prospect of losing then all tension is removed from the game. So while it is always more fun to win, losing is what makes winning sweet. The GMs who roll over on encounters and hand out prestige like candy because it's 'more fun', are watering down the value of success. Not only that, it discourages the people who play smart because while they are putting efforts into winning prestige honestly, others are gaining prestige by ill thought out GM charity.

The only way the game can have crowning moments, is if there is the very real possibility of crushing defeats.

I'm a bit of a hard-*** all around. I only allow 'creative' solutions to gaining prestige if they make sense. You might be able to use bluff instead of stealth or hire a spellcaster to cast make whole on the broken china, but it is never a hand out. I suspect people fail at their prestige missions at my table far closer to the 50% of the time which is intended than at the typical table.

I almost never change scenarios beyond altering NPC tactics and even then it's usually not going entirely off script so much as responding to a different situation than the writer expected*. I do run creatures as tough as I possibly can while being fair to the characters.

So in a nutshell, I try to stick to the script as much as possible, but the players tend to ignore the script and do their own thing so you have to be able to flex to accomodate them.

Solving this through PvP action is going to end in trouble even if the one character is dominated.

Ask them to stop. If they don't then boot them. Make it clear in no uncertain terms that they are making the game less fun for the dwarf player and that you won't tolerate jerks.

As for auto-wins, consider for a moment:

.

.

15th level rogue stealth check:
15 ranks
+7 dexterity
+3 class skill
+6 skill focus
+5 cloak of elvenkind (or elixir of hiding grants +10)

+36 without even trying too hard. If they took stealthy and were size small it would be +44, finally add +20 for using a ring of invisibility... and it's auto fail even with RDs +43.

The 'problem' with skills in Pathfinder is they are easy to ramp up way beyond what 'normal' characters can achieve. Opposed skills can only be opposed by someone who has invested nearly equally.

When a player puts three feats, makes a class choice, and buys a magic item so his character is really, really good at something, his character should benefit from that.

15 ranks
08 wisdom modifier
06 skill focus feat
05 eyes of the eagle
04 alertness feat
03 class skill (due to the Cosmopolitan feat)
02 racial bonus (for being a kenku)
43 TOTAL MODIFIER

I agree with BNW regarding max encounter distances, but otherwise there is no need to build arbitrary boundaries around a skill which is a pretty basic staple of the game. A character with a ridiculous perception check isn't going to break the game.

I'm not sure why the surprise round would be treated any different with the diviner.

Combat starts, roll initiative, act in initiative order. Adding that phrase about flat footed until they act is redundant, everyone is flat footed until they act. If the diviner acts before he is aware of where the threat is the player should act appropriately.

I'm kind of curious to see how this plays out in a game because I've never run a game with a diviner in it and I'm starting one now for PFS. It should be interesting to see how different GMs handle it.

...

Just ignore that last post. Sometimes I post before I think. I have no idea how you game or what you've done with your character. It sounds kind of cheesy to me at first glance, but then I'm certain some of my characters seem cheesy to others and I've seen plenty of people make weirder ideas work. To each his own.

I don't see a problem with Pharasma granting powers to a Dhampir. It does make me cringe mightily to see to see the rather cool Pharasma canon thrown under the bus for what seems to me a rather gimmicky character concept.

That said, I don't think it's the job of PFS GMs to enforce Pathfinder/ Golarion canon when it applies to a specific character.

Technically, it would play out that the diviner's spider sense tingles before you even made the perception check, so your sorcerer wouldn't have an answer until his initiative comes up.

This isn't right. His 'spider sense' won't tingle until combat is starting which isn't until RD's sorcerer decides to attack the enemy. If RD decided to not tell the party about the enemy they might bypass them entirely and the diviner would never be the wiser.

I can see it now:

GM: You divine that something is amiss. What do you do?
Diviner: I ask the sorcerer what I'm missing.

:D

Talking IS a free action that can be taken out of turn after all. The above diviner may well have enough time to get a response from my sorcerer and act upon the new information.

Sure, sounds like a great plan. Then you can misdirect him.

If I were the GM I would have the diviner make a perception check on the off chance he hears the same thing, otherwise just tell him "You sense something is amiss. What do you do?" He has to guess what's coming next. It's a great chance to drop a quick buff spell or even teleport out.

You aren't getting cheated out of anything, the diviner is getting the benefit of his class ability, 'his spider sense is tingling'. You have lots of options without starting combat. As has been mentioned, the diviner knows "Something" is going to come down, but not what. If you intent to lob a fireball and want to keep the diviner in the dark then pass a note to the GM, the diviner is still in the dark.

There is also at least one Oracle revelation that gives you the ability to act in the surprise round, I don't recall what it is off the top of my head.

If there is only one person aware, you can do whatever you want.

If you lob a fireball, it is the surprise round and unless they have an ability to act in the surprise round while not aware (diviner I'm looking at you) they are screwed. Even if they can act in the surprise round they don't necessarily know where the threat is from. After the surprise round normal combat and initiative ensues. Some GMs allow you to delay your surprise round action until the beginning of the first normal round so you can go first with a full round action. (I do)

You can do things which do not initiate combat. For example summoning 10 dire bears would not initiate combat unless the enemy is aware of you.

You can just walk away.

Alert the rest of the party to the threat so they are aware also. This can happen before the surprise round starts so long as the enemy isn't aware of you.

Nah, it's just, there's a rhythm to this, and it throws off my groove when things get twisted.

Fighters Suck
Monks are OP
Smite Evil is Evil
Rogues are Useless
Paladin Alignment
PF 2E
Roll-play vs. Role-play
Point-buy or Rolling
Edition War
etc etc.

It's like forum feng shui, things got to be aligned right, y'know?

If the threads get off alignment the negative energy pools up instead of flowing out through the open windows and doors the way it should. I remember when a 2E thread popped up next a Fighters Suck thread, the forums were in a funk for weeks.

Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I prefer my GM's to do it because they want to, not because they are farming for chronicles/rewards.

I think of GM rewards as the gateway drug for GMing. You lure them in with the promise of rewards and then after GMing three or four times they realize they enjoy GMing for its own sake.

For us anyhow, GM rewards are good for recruiting but not for retention.

All that said, if people want to talk about changing GM rewards, it shouldn't be changed in a way that limits my play choices later on. It would be much more difficult to recruit if prospective GMs knew that GMing would limit their play options.

How would you encourage GMs to play scenarios before they run them without punishing the GMs who have to slot zero those scenarios?

I suspect the majority of GMs would love to play each scenario first, the catch is that Paizo isn't driving around in a bus doing slot zero for every single scenario out there. Someone is going to have to 'eat' that scenario, why should that person get the short end of the stick?

The current system has it's flaws, but screwing over slot zero GMs isn't one of them and any change in it should keep it that way.

I was thinking of something that encouraged people to GM. What you suggest makes it more difficult for active GMs who run slot zeros to play their characters...

Not much reward there :(

Thanks for GMing, we're going to reward you with fewer play options!

Maybe people keep on beating the dead horse because there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the fact that the horse is dead.

Or a few people who like the sound the horse flesh makes when you give it a good solid smack.

I don't think GMs should necessarily be able to play in a module for credit if they have already run the module as a GM.

What do you suggest as an alternate GM reward?

We'd love to get GMs who step up for no reward at all but GM rewards are a big part of recruiting for many of us. What do you propose as an alternate?

Sure. I was assuming you were talking about using two weapon fighting and spell combat in the same round. If you are alternating rounds, I don't get the point of getting the extra arms. Just use your one handed weapon with two hands in the rounds you don't cast.

I would let it fly, but you could only improve their attitude by one step.

A slightly different example, Bob is unfriendly, and Alice drops charm person on him which puts him at friendly. Alice wines and dines him moving him to helpful. When the spell wears off and he drops back to indifferent (one better than he was previously) and is wondering why he's been so helpful to you all this time. You could then charm and diplomacize him again, each time making him into a little more friendly.

I don't think the RAW aspects of charm person are as cut and dried as wraithstrike suggests, but even if they were I would still run it this way because it's a more thematic way of looking at the spell. The evil enchanter slowly bringing the townspeople under his sway until they all genuinely love him.

A couple things. I'm pretty sure the penalties for two weapon fighting and spell combat would stack. Also, the penalty for fighting with an off hand weapon that isn't light are pretty steep. I think you'd be at -6 on all attacks by then, -4 if your off hand/ spell combat weapon is light.

I think the bit about bestiary feats is also on the Additional Resources Page. That is more or less the place to answer 'is it legal' questions. Also, if you don't have the link, the FAQ has lots of additional information.

Edit: I just noticed the link you posted for the Additional Resources page is broken. This one works (link)

As for Compsog, as Evan says it's in the Additional Resources so it's legal.
As for Ability Focus, it is only listed in the bestiary and feats from the bestiary are only legal if they are explicitly granted from some class ability or other source. (For example rangers can take some of them via the natural weapons combat style).

Midnight_Angel wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Reincarnate is pretty easy unless you go to another plane or you are not a humanoid, but that was intentionally left to a GM. I doubt there is a way to cover every special situation for that one.

Ah, but with the additional playable races (catfolk or tengu, anyone?), the reincarnation table is a tad... dusty.

They are still humanoid, unless you are saying they are not an option to be reincarnated as according to the spell's current version, but I don't think updating the core spell should be done. The GM may not like such creatures nor have access to the books. If he does like them changing the percentages to make room for them is not something he needs a developer to do.

I've long house ruled a custom table that added entries for "character's previous race" and "caster's race".

I just noticed. There is no [+] button to make a blog a favorite.

Great blog.

@Robert - Spoiler tags please, this is general discussion.

You can read scrolls without using read magic simple by making a high enough spellcraft check.

See the section in the Magic Chapter "Arcane Magical Writings"

Also, an alchemist could not make an extract of fireball because it's not on his spell list.

do any of the Outsider type notes apply? (modified by Native...

I would think all of this is replace by the PCs class write-up right?

One of the developers (I think James?) mentioned in another thread that these don't apply unless the character has Outsider hit dice.

Just a quick side note.

While necromancers are legal, the magic that animates undead ends at the end of a game session regardless of the duration of the spell. So running around with a troup of zombie soldiers is going to be expensive.

Also, many PFS scenarios take place in cities where undead servants shuffling around might not be welcome. I suspect most GMs hand-wave this the way they hand wave 900 lbs bears or eidolons wandering through towns but it is a possible issue.

Glanced at the thread title and thought it said "Bacon of good".

Alas it is not.

Edit: Dragnmoon — It is a Silver Crusade vanity in the field guide.

nidho wrote:

I agree with the STR and DEX points but...

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin(say ranger). The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

The problem with what you are suggesting...

He is right, one level of ranger/ paladin/ wizard/ etc is all you need to be able to use wands/ staves from those classes. The above isn't a suggestion, it is the rule from the book.

0gre wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

I want these things. I also want African, Native American, and Polynesian equipment.

Isn't this covered by the primitive weapons section in Ultimate Combat? What is undone there?

That's weapons. I'm not talking about weapons. I'm talking about household items, culturally significant items, magic items, and so on.

My suspicion is that sort of culture specific item would be included in either the PFS Player Companion, or the PF Campaign Setting line (or for that matter the AP). That's where the majority of cultural/ setting type items are found. Lots of Asian items popping up in those lines right now for Jade Regent. From your list, there are a lot of African themed articles in the books that were coming out during Serpents Skull. It's possible some of those items might reappear in the equipment book.

If there are items from those specific cultures that have bled into more common use they might appear in Ultimate Equipment... the flying carpet, ring of three wishes, and the genie in a bottle are examples of cultural items that crept into the core game.

I want these things. I also want African, Native American, and Polynesian equipment.

Isn't this covered by the primitive weapons section in Ultimate Combat? What is undone there?

Hardcore mode is dangerous as it would split the player base. Small communities don't have enough players and if you occasionally mix them back then there is a bigger problem as before.

No, it is not. But as I told Robert, it's a different discussion than this so if you want to discuss it on another thread that's fine.

And those players should feel perfectly entitled to do so, too.

If you want to start another thread to discuss this or dig up the old one I created feel free. It's a side issue and I don't really want to dig into it more in this thread. Suffice to say I don't think it's as harmless as you profess.