Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
The Green Faith

Andrew Christian's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul. 2,737 posts (6,790 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 20 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Good job!

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Awesome!

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congrats!

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2 people marked this as a favorite.

we used a one of the tree feather tokens to create a tree in front of the Aspis swinging across the ravine.

"George, George, George of the Jungle..."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I nominated Eando Kline

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Avatar-1 wrote:

What about a pregen to make a 4 player table that's not receiving any credit but pulling high tier characters into lower tier?

Doesn't seem right to just say "too bad"?

I don't see how this is possible or even achievable based on what I said.

3 level 10's is 30, plus a level 7 pregen is 37, divided by 4 is 9.25 or 9, so you play down at the 6 player adjustment or play up depending on the season. But since there isn't a pregen higher than level 7, this is the only time this happens.

Otherwise, if you are playing at an otherwise 1-2 table, use the level 1 pregen. If you are playing at an otherwise 3-4 or 4-5, use the level 4 pregen.

If you are playing at an otherwise 5-6, 6-7, 8-9 or 10-11, then the level 7 pregen is the appropriate one.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I see nothing banning you from selecting either level range appropriate pregen as the table prefers. I prefer to make sure the pregen matches the sub-tier, but if the pregen can determine the sub-tier I will consider the wishes of the party.

If you have a table of level 1s or 2s, common sense says you don't allow a level 4 pregen to play at that table.

I know that the guide to organized play doesn't specifically spell that out. But frankly it shouldn't have to. Common sense says you use the appropriate leveled pregen. Which means you try to match the APL of the actual player characters as best you can.

That's how I enforce it at my tables, and how I impress it should be enforced at tables that I play at.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

you certainly count the pregens when determining APL. But you determine what level the pregens are based on the most likely APL based on the player characters.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

UndeadMitch wrote:

I have no dog in the fight, but how is an archetype not being altered is not the same as a class being altered? An archetype is just an alternate class, right? This is an actual question, I don't really care one way or another if Sound Striker Bards get rebuilds or not.

Edit to sound a bit less confrontational.

The rule has nothing to do with a change to the archetype. It only refers to a change to an ability score Dependant thing.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

It does not mean that, and lists aren't parsed that way.

No rebuild is allowed. There is no reason for Mike to comment.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

The FAQ is done by the design team. It has nothing to do with PFS, other than PFS abides by the FAQ.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

currently the rules of the Guide to Organized Play v6.0, pages 27 and 28, do not support a rebuild. No feat or trait was changed or removed. No class, prestige class, or class feature dependent ability score was altered. Nothing about the class changed so that you no longer have proficiency in certain weapons.

By the rules, this change does not fall under any auspices of a rebuild opportunity.

You can petition for one if you like. But currently the rules do not support a rebuild.

I am not going to get into the argument about whether I feel this deserves a rebuild or not. As that isn't what this thread is about. Its asking if one is allowed. Currently one is not.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

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

Serious question: I recognise the cost-to-play/cost-to-run ideals, and that's fine since PDFs are cheap. That said, the PRD IS on the Player's Resources page. If this is true, why wouldn't I be allowed to reference the PRD when creating a character/siting a sources for a feat/spell/rule/etc?

Seems kind of backwards if you ask me.

Because if the 75,000 people who played Pathfinder Society used only the PRD, then Paizo wouldn't be selling books.
Fair enough, fair enough. But it doesn't explain why it's linked as a player resource, nor does it account for the splat books and non-core books that are not included in the PRD.

I'm not sure I understand your distinction at all.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mark Stratton wrote:

Yes, the rule itself couldn't be clearer on that point.

I agree with you - I mean, even if I didn't think the intent was important, the language of the rule is more than clear enough.

That's what I thought. But since I am somewhat personally invested in what was written, I didn't want to sound all pompous like I'd written the perfect wording or something.

That being said, the intent was so that the campaign staff didn't have to re-explore the wording everytime some new class came out. That the rule would cover the new class based on how the new class was written.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:

If the general rule is that divine casters need to worship a deity, the specific language of the Shaman means they do not have to have one.

In Pathfinder, specific beats general.

The class itself exempts it from the rule.

And the rule itself supports that exemption.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tabletop Prophet wrote:

Serious question: I recognise the cost-to-play/cost-to-run ideals, and that's fine since PDFs are cheap. That said, the PRD IS on the Player's Resources page. If this is true, why wouldn't I be allowed to reference the PRD when creating a character/siting a sources for a feat/spell/rule/etc?

Seems kind of backwards if you ask me.

Because if the 75,000 people who played Pathfinder Society used only the PRD, then Paizo wouldn't be selling books.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

The "or otherwise specified" is referring to the fluff written into the classes. The rule was designed to be forward compatible with new classes.

Was it perfect wording? Maybe not.

But if you don't accept the word of someone who "HELPED WRITE IT!" then I don't know what will convince you.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

MichaelCullen wrote:
James, I agree with you. As it currently stands, shamans require a deity. I am merely pointing out that it is contrary to their flavor, and it could be easily fixed. It seems the exception was designed with the idea that more exceptions may be added in the future. It is my hope, that the shaman will be added to this list of exceptions.

I helped write the text of the rule. So I can speak to its intent.

The intent was to write a rule that could accommodate new classes based on how those new classes were written.

The Shaman is specifically written that they don't worship a deity.

Therefore, they clearly fall under the "or otherwise specified" classification of the rule.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

James Wygle wrote:
PRD wrote:
While some heroes speak to gods or consort with otherworldly muses, shamans commune with the spirits of the world and the energies that exist in every living thing.
Seems to me that that would qualify as "unless otherwise specified"...

I agree with this.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

deusvult wrote:
It's probably fair to ask for a FAQ.. but I'd suspect that if Druids don't have to have one, then neither should/will Shamans.

I think the closer correlation would be Oracles.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

kinevon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Wish doesn't need to be specifically addressed. Spell effects do not carry over from scenario to scenario.

Note, there is a caveat on this, since items created by spells are explicitly allowed to remain.

If a magic item creates something like an additional item or currency, can I keep it?
Answer: Yes

I would suspect a Wish could be used to create a fairly powerful, but not Wish-granting, item.

Or, even, simulate casting a Heightened Continual Flame spell on something, at Spell Level 7 or 8, caster level, fairly high. This, specifically, probably won't break anything, but I am sure there are other uses that can either break the module, or do other weird things that might persist, somehow.

This was in regards to a spell like Fabricate, which typically creates mundane items, and items of little expense.

I believe further on in the thread you'll find that common sense is invoked, and as long as it doesn't get ridiculous. That if abused, it certainly would not be allowed.

Creating any amount of treasure that essentially breaks the WBL would not persist from scenario to scenario. And no amount of wrangling by a player with FAQ's or message board posts is going to change that.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Charles Scholz wrote:

I never saw that T-Shirt Rob is wearing.

Is it only available in England?
I looked on Paizo's site, and it was never offered.
Are there others out there.
How about a link.

Those are the special Paizo volunteer shirts that you get if you GM at Gen Con or Paizo Con (or presumably PaizoCon UK).

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Yes. I'll see if I can pull up the section in the guide that deals with this.

Edit:

Guide to Organized Play, v6.0, page 24 wrote:

The following spells found in the Core Rulebook are not

legal for play and may never be used, found, purchased,
or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder Society
Scenarios: awaken, permanency, and reincarnate.
All spells and effects end at the end of a scenario with
the following exceptions:
• Spells and effects with permanent or instantaneous
duration that heal damage, repair damage, or remove
harmful conditions remain in effect at the end of the
scenario.
• Afflictions and harmful conditions obtained during
a scenario remain until healed and carry over from
scenario to scenario (except in specific instances as
noted on Page 22).
• A character may have one each of the following spells that
carries overs from scenario to scenario: continual flame,
masterwork transformation, secret chest, and secret page.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Wish doesn't need to be specifically addressed. Spell effects do not carry over from scenario to scenario.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

trik wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
trik wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

They also explicitly said if it was overpowered in that caveat. Their exact words (copied from the Internet Archive link I posted earlier in the thread): "If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."

I don't think the general consensus was that these characters were overpowered - people just thought it was cheesy, regardless of the balance. The fact that we weren't seeing surges of characters taking these PrCs and slaughtering tables (they in fact remained incredibly rare) gives credence to the change being very surprising, because the caveat had a stated trigger condition that hadn't triggered.

While this is absolutely correct according to traditional rules of logic and reasoning, I don't think the detractors acknowledge traditional rules of logic and reasoning as an acceptable victory condition in this specific difference of opinions. :)
Some people don't assume their experience is everybody's experience.
I'm referring specifically to the rules laid out in a Logic and Reasoning course in higher education. Generally something like Philosophy 101. They are very explicit rules that govern logic and they are completely independent of individual experience.

Except there is no "victory" to be had here. The situation is what it is, and those affected by it just need to make the best of it they can.

Using fancy words to impugn other folks ability to use logic also isn't really appropriate.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bacon is bacon. Yum!

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I'm not the one bringing it back up.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

It wasn't completely endorsed or the design team wouldn't have written in a clause saying they were reserving the right to look at it again at a later date.

While its implicit in their job title that they gave the right to revisit any ruling they make, it made me entirely steer clear of it that they explicitly said they might.

Revisionist history paints this as completely legit with no ref flags and a sense of irritation and wonderment that they changed it.

It was in black and white, saying they might. No other ruling to my recollection ever did that.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

andreww wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

I think what Howie23 was trying to say is similar to what I've heard some other say. That even though the SLA exception was legal, some feel it was clearly an exploitative way to use the rules to your benefit and that something that glaringly obvious would most likely be reversed or at least changed in the future. By taking advantage of said "loophole" you knowingly set yourself up for a future "screwing" and that demanding an accommodation is disingenuous.

Not making a value statement nor agreeing/disagreeing with that position, just relaying what I understand the position to be. Make you own decision if it has merit or not. YMMV

Such a view requires you to wilfully ignore the explicit statement from the PDT that this was something they were aware of and happy with and *might* revisit if it proved to be overpowering.

They allowed it to remain. But the secondary effect was one they had not considered and were not aware of until it actually happened and they were made aware of it. They allowed it to remain under scrutiny.

It is revisionist history to say that they knew about it before hand and were happy with it.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

you figure the pregen levels into the total APL.

If you have a mix mash of levels, then whatever level the Pregen(s) end up being will likely determine the final APL and what sub-tier and whether any adjustment is made.

But if all regular characters fit into one or the other subtier, then the pregen should match that sub-tier as best as possible.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mark Stratton wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


That's why if you aren't appropriate for the sub-tier, its called out-of-sub-tier.

But the passage I quoted doesn't say "appropriate sub-tier." It says, in part "if you don't have a character in the appropriate level range..." Not subtier. Those aren't the same thing.

Common sense says you play in sub tier with pregens.
Well, be thankful that you've been blessed with common sense then, Andy, because I'm not the only one reading the rule this way, it seems.

Whether the language is explicit or not, at some point we need to use common sense.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mark Stratton wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


That's why if you aren't appropriate for the sub-tier, its called out-of-sub-tier.

But the passage I quoted doesn't say "appropriate sub-tier." It says, in part "if you don't have a character in the appropriate level range..." Not subtier. Those aren't the same thing.

Common sense says you play in sub tier with pregens.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mark Stratton wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Pregen must be appropriate to the sub tier played. No level 4 in a 1-2 or level 7 in a 3-4. None of that shenanigans.

I'm not challenging you, Andrew, but am asking where I might a citation for this? That's not how I read the section yesterday (or, rather, that explicit language isn't there.)

I agree, on principle, that it seems more appropriate to do it that way, sure.

It's in the general rules for tiering tables. Put it this way, there is no rule that says that pre-gens are treated any differently than player characters when it says which tiers are appropriate to them. So you follow the normal rules for player characters with them.

Alright, sure - but a level 4 character can play in a subtier 1-2 game, correct, provided the overall scenario is levels 1-5? Is that not correct? Sure, they couldn't play a level 4 character in a level 1 or a level 1-2 scenario, but for a scenario that has multiple subtiers (a level 1-5 would be subtiers 1-2 and 4-5), they could play in that, correct?

So, if I am running Library of the Lion (Level 1-5) and we are playing Subtier 1-2, a level 4 character can play in that game, correct?

Being able to play and being appropriate for the sub-tier are two different things.

That's why if you aren't appropriate for the sub-tier, its called out-of-sub-tier.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pregen must be appropriate to the sub tier played. No level 4 in a 1-2 or level 7 in a 3-4. None of that shenanigans.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to thank Tiger Lily and Jiggy for posting some very comprehensive, and well thought out arguments.

Those were pretty much what I asked for.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

FYI: I was asleep when Jiggy and Tiger Lily posted their arguments and when Mike responded.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Now that we have acknowledgment, can we get to,"how can I move forward with this character?"

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Any V-O could have made the same offer. It just happened to be me. Mike and I do not have a working relationship in which I can bend his ear any more than anyone or any other VO could.

My opinion on this is very clear. It has not changed since my earlier posts. So I could not objectively present your opinion to Mike in my own words.

But I do have integrity. And as such, when I make an offer to present something as written, that's exactly what I'll do.

Whether it has any effect, or just makes Mike mad at me for making him read and "consider" again for a 3rd time, I don't know. But I'm willing to take that bullet if it helps alleviate concerns here.

Consider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Ryan Bloomquist should be Ryan Blomquist.

His last name only has 1 "O".

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Lets get this straight shall we?

Pedantic arguments that work in the favor of the arguer's case, are just proof that the argument is correct.

Pedantic arguments that work against the favor of the arguer's case, are just nitpicking straw men.

If you are going to argue semantics to make a case for your point, then you should be ready for those who want to pick the nits out of your pedantry.

However, in this case, I do not believe I'm trying to argue any specific point. I'm just correcting a mistaken concept so that the point-makers can try to make their points with full semantic back-up.

So, what's pedantic for the sake of being pedantic exactly? I think your distinction is incorrect. Being pedantic to ensure correctness in the argument, and provide clarity and value to a discussion is good. Being pedantic because... reasons just irritates people.

So again, where's the value in that distinction?

The argument has apparently circled back around to mention of rebuilds.

So someone mentioned that nothing in the PrC changed, so by the exact wording of the current rebuild rules in the Guide to Organized Play, no rebuild should be allowed, because nothing in the actual class has changed.

Then it was brought up that this was just semantics and the end result is the same.

I just made a flippant observation (and it was aimed at myself as well), that pedantry is fine as long as the pedantry helps your argument.

What's the point?

The characters can still get into the prestige classes. That hasn't changed. It will just take two or three more levels than the player originally thought.

Is this good or bad? Frankly, at this point, I don't care anymore. This argument is exhausting because of wading through all the pedantry. But the bottom line, is the only damage, I can see, is not to the character, but to the player who might not enjoy the extra couple levels of being less effective than they would have been had they got into the PrC at the earlier level.

Is this a good enough reason to make Mike change his mind?

To date, it has not been.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Talonhawke wrote:
They are asking for characters level 2 and up who were already on the path to be allowed to progress as if early entry still existed. No new or level one characters allowed. Basically no one could rush a bunch of characters in to suddenly be good for the future and realistically very few people would suddenly jump on the chance to head for the PrC early if they weren't already headed that way.

So let me tell you what I'm going to do.

Someone write me a post without emotional reason or passion in it, that logically explains the problem. Don't say why its good or bad. Just logically explain the problem.

Then logically explain what the ramifications are to the characters affected. Please, no impassioned pleas or hyperbole about how your character is ruined. Just a logical explanation of the ramifications to that character. If played to completion, what are its long term prognosis and at what point is it difficult to have fun playing because of lack of early entry. why can this character just not wait for another 2 levels to get the prestige class? How would this tangibly hurt the character or make it unfun to play.

Then logically explain one or two solutions that would solve the problems addressed above.

If the post meets these prerequisites, I will personally email Mike and point him to the post. I will let you know the time and date that I pointed Mike to the post.

With the understanding that:

A) He most likely will still say no.

B) He may not respond at all, because he's already said no twice. He has already assured me last week that he's read every post in this thread (and probably still is reading).

If he does not respond within a week, assume that his previous responses still hold and he chooses not to repeat himself for the 3rd time. Understand that any lack of response directly from Mike at this point is not disrespect, but rather an unwillingness to continue arguing a point he's already made a decision on twice.

But if you want someone to hear a compiled, logical idea, then I will listen to it and push it up the chain.

But any hint of hyperbole or emotion, and I'll kick it back.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If we agree that the PrC didn't change, what does that mean?

It means nothing really other than something people can point to as a "rigid", "objective" reason to not allow a grace period or a rebuild.

As if people can't just come out and say they don't agree with a grace period/rebuild.

At this point it's all just opinions.

Lets get this straight shall we?

Pedantic arguments that work in the favor of the arguer's case, are just proof that the argument is correct.

Pedantic arguments that work against the favor of the arguer's case, are just nitpicking straw men.

If you are going to argue semantics to make a case for your point, then you should be ready for those who want to pick the nits out of your pedantry.

However, in this case, I do not believe I'm trying to argue any specific point. I'm just correcting a mistaken concept so that the point-makers can try to make their points with full semantic back-up.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jiggy wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?

To use EK as an example, the requirements were (in addition to martial weapon prof):

To either have a number of levels in an arcane spellcasting class to reach 3rd-level spells on their class progression chart, or be able to cast a 3rd-level arcane SLA.

This is incorrect.

The requirements were to cast 3rd level spells.

For a short while, Spell-Like Abilities were able to meet this requirement. They no longer are.

The PrC never considered Spell-Like Abilities.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jiggy wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:
The Prestige class didn't change.
If the Prestige Class hadn't changed, this thread wouldn't exist. But it did change. Specifically, the entry requirements changed. The text of the entry requirements didn't change, but what the entry requirements actually mechanically ARE changed. To suggest a meaningful difference between changing the words and changing the meaning is entirely unreasonable.

This is incorrect Jiggy.

The Prestige class certainly did not change at all.

The only change is how Spell-Like Abilities are dealt with in the game. The initial FAQ had a side effect on PrCs. That side effect no longer exists.

But the PrC did not change, at all.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

DrParty06 wrote:
It is specifically listed in the scenario that the GM only receives the Wish boon if the players receive the boon. I ran it twice, and my players did not get it either time.

Actually that's not strictly true.

You can only get the boon if you actually play it and earn it.

You can never get the boon by GM'ing this one.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I'm not sure we have 6 neferphras.

Ryan Blomquist
Andy Christian
Jon Lamkin
Jon Dehning
Chris Mortika

Ryan Bolduan I don't think ever got his 5th, although he's got to be close and Jack, Kitty, and J Michael are all at 4 stars and should get their 5th sometime in the next 18 months.

Gosh, I keep feeling like I'm missing someone, but I don't think I am.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2011 - 15 Play / 22 GM
2012 - 39 Play / 46 GM
2013 - 47 Play / 66 GM
2014 - 56 Play / 58 GM
2015 - 13 Play / 14 GM

Looks like I'm fairly balanced.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Adopted gnome etymologist doesn't work, because both adopted and etymologyst are social traits.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Per the Wiki, elves are almost always fair skinned. The only exceptions noted are the tanned elves of the deserts of Osirion, and Drow. There is a vague implication that the wild elves of the Mwangi Expanse might have a darker skin tone as well. But that is never explicitly noted.

Then that wiki article is inaccurate. Ekujae have been repeatedly stated to have the sane skin tone range as their Mwangi human neighbors. Elves are generally fair-skinned in Avistan. In Garund, it's a different story.

Barring people from playing elves with African skin tones is falling into highly questionable territory. I'm not even talking about the drow issue here. Conflating that ban with a ban on dark-skinned elves/half-elves period would be extraordinarily misguided, both in terms of adhering to the campaign setting and presenting an inclusive atmosphere to players.

Then again PFS still has serious problems complying with canon. The aasimar and tiefling age range issue still hasn't been sorted out, with players being stuck with a table that has been explicitly called out as being wrong instead of the ranges suggested by the creative director and shown in actual Golarion products.

Seriously, if an Ekujae elf that looks like this is banned, something has gone seriously wrong somewhere.

The wiki uses language directly from the books.

Nobody said that mwangi skin tone was out. Nobody.

Just no Drow. Pure and simple.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

If you play Skulls and Shackles, then it is reasonable that perhaps your initial 1st level build will not be piratey. Afterall, you are shanghaied.

But if you refuse to eventually make build choices that make you at least somewhat effective as a pirate, then you probably aren't going to enjoy Skulls and Shackles too much.

We aren't playing WoW, where you have goofballs running around as "LORDOFDARKNESS!"

If you are playing Second Darkness, and the GM tells you that anything drow-like is off-limits, and you create a character with Drow stuff, then he has a right to veto that character. Its his campaign. You have a right not to play in his campaign if that really sticks in your craw.

Mike is PFS's GM, for all intents and purposes. He has said, "No Drow."

If you choose options for your character that essentially make you look like a Drow, then that really is your problem. Not the GM's. and they have the right to say no.

Ekujae, by the way, are a Tribe of Wild Elves from the Mwangi.

Per the Wiki, elves are almost always fair skinned. The only exceptions noted are the tanned elves of the deserts of Osirion, and Drow. There is a vague implication that the wild elves of the Mwangi Expanse might have a darker skin tone as well. But that is never explicitly noted.

So if you are an elf, with a significantly dark skin tone, then you are most likely a Drow, by Golarion Lore.

Drow are described as having ember-dark skin.

This coloration is significantly different than the ethnicities from the Mwangi Expanse or Garundi. So a half-elf who's human half is Mwangi, would at most have a dark brown skin tone.

Easily identifiable from an ember-dark skin tone.

I honestly don't see what's so hard using the existing lore of the land your character lives in to define what your character looks like. Deviating from that, means you really aren't playing Pathfinder Society in Golarion.

1 to 50 of 2,737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.