|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
In all cases, you can apply GM credit exactly as you can apply player credit.
The language in the guide is not 100% clear on this, but certainly you can take a higher level GM credit and downsize the gold and give it to a brand new 1st level character if you wanted.
Kyle Baird wrote:
I have multiclassed characters as well. Many of the Prestige Classes require multiclassing to be able to take them. Bbauzh wouldn't exist in his current form if it weren't for the Rage Prophet requiring multiclassing.
But dipping a level of crossblooded sorcerer (orc/dragon) so you do +2 damage per damage die with your Wizard spells or dipping a level of Cleric of Gozreh so you can get the Growth subdomain so you can enlarge 7 rounds per day with your otherwise reasonable Dragon Disciple...
They would be affected as per the gaze rules. But talk to your GM beforehand. If you have no intention of exploiting the Charm in play, the GM may be inclined to handwave that part.
As long as you aren't doing or making them do anything detrimental to their characters, it would not fall under PvP.
As always, expect table variation.
You can't use single lines of text to make your case, while ignoring other lines of text.
In the same blog, it was also stated that 10 was probably excessive and asked everyone to use good judgement and to please respect the intent of this change.
You can't ignore that just so you can make your point.
I would say the limit is somewhere between 3 (your post highlighted the number 3) and 10 (the number John and Mike use in the Blog as a number identifying what would be excessive.
And if you want to use RAW as an argument, I'd say that 3 is the upper limit, because 3 is the number used.
He says, and I quote, "another native outsider or three."
In context, I agree that the language is being ambiguous and just giving an example.
But if we need a hard number, I'd say its already in the blog.
Hey Walter, I guess we ran it wrong. :)
I got something wrong on this when I ran it on Thursday for a Pre Paizo Con pick up.
I thought the geyser was 1 minute of explosion every 1d4+1 rounds instead of a momentary explosion every 1d4+1 rounds over the course if one minute.
Made that fight really difficult.
If folks abuse the very generous grandfathering, by doing exactly what you were asked not to do, why would you think the next time would not be different.
I mean seriously. Campaign leadership asked us specifically to not abuse this. And so if you basically ignore that, abuse it, you are essentially spitting in their face.
Make a Tiefling. Make two even. Make sure you gave an XP on it. If someone wants to be overly officious because your second game is after August 14, then ask your VO then Mike to intervene. As I feel they are also breaking the intent if the openness of this grandfathering.
But please don't abuse it. If rampant abuse actually happens and is observed then you can expect this level of trust to disappear.
Why? You might ask. Because you are breaking a trust. You don't have to like it or even agree with it.
But its a trust they asked you in good faith to honor.
So will you honor that trust or spit on it to satisfy your own desires?
Hall, not City or Citadel name. Koldukar and Jandherhoff are the names of the respective cities or sky citadels. Not the name of a clan hall within Jormurdun.
NPCs decidedly do not follow all the same rules as PFS PCs.
Jonathan Cary wrote:
It appears there are 16 separate columns and 2 staircases (I'm assuming that's where the railings are).
So they'd have to do 18 separate checks to break the tubing.
There are 10 columns accessible on the 1st level and 8 on the 2nd level (2 are the same column on both levels) and since they are columns they should be accessible to anyone. And the railings on the stairs are accessible to anyone as well.
But if they are paying attention, it shouldn't take more than 30 seconds to tecalibrate.
Jiggy. If you finish the build prior to August 14, and don't have time to stop by one of my game days for even 5 minutes, scan me in the rebuild and I'll email you back an approval. That should be good enough for ant concerns.
This would. It breaks the request that we respect the intent of the change.
But if just a few do so, then it probably won't be an issue. If lots do it, then it becomes an issue.
Personally, I'm not going to spend the time trying to police it. If someone local to me keeps having "legit" aassimars and or tieflings over and over, then I can take them to the side and request they honor the spirit of this change.
John and Mike were extremely generous in how open they left the grandfathering.
In the spirit if that, I'm not going to make any assumptions about what a pregen or gm credit baby really was prior to your (re)"building" it.
But if I know what your character was prior to your rebuild, and you come to my table without at least one more credit on the character that is also before August 14, and the current date us after August 14, I'll have to deny that particular rebuild.
Mike and John asked us to please respect the intent. If enough people break that trust, then they may revoke or further restrict the grandfathering.
So please let's not get overly officious or lawery about this. I for one will assume a player is on the up and up until they prove to me otherwise.
I request that all other GMs do likewise.
And there we have it.
My concerns are allayed.
Sure some of the rules were slightly off, but the end result was a GM trying to be merciful rather than hard core or vindictive.
Only thing I'd caution, unless these are brand new players, allowing the scenario to claim its victims can actually do far more to teach them to be better prepared rather than bending the rules to help them live.
I don't want to call anyone out specifically.
But frankly, if a GM knows that they are "on call" then it is a bit irresponsible to schedule themselves to run a game that would likely put another GM and/or the coordinator in the position of either canceling a table or offering a sub-par session where a GM would run cold.
At Con of the North last year, I had a GM email me at 8am the day of the convention and tell me that he couldn't make the entire convention.
I had to scramble, while trying to do a half day's work, to get someone to cover. Fortunately Jon Dehning had run the 5-9 at our slot-0, so he could take that, and another guy stepped up and the 1-5's weren't slated to run until the second slot, which gave him about 8 hours to prep. Not ideal, but at least we didn't have anyone run cold for those slots.
How many times does a GM back out so last minute that you literally can't find another GM and give them at least 12 hours to prep?
How many times is it the same GM that does this?
Why is this GM depended upon to run a table?
In the 3 years I've been a Venture Officer, I have yet to have a GM back out on a game day and cause this situation to come to fruition. I've had players back out last second or no-show. But never a GM.
If a GM did this to me once, I'd see if there was another GM who had run that at some point, and ask them to step in (I did this for a fellow coordinator in my region once.) Or I'd let the players figure out what they wanted to do amongst themselves.
But ultimately, if the GM doesn't show last second, I would cancel the table and apologize to the players.
If this same GM just no-showed, or didn't have a really good reason for last second canceling, I would never ask them to GM for me again. If they do it to me a second time even with a good excuse, I would never ask them to GM for me again.
Why? Because even with good excuses, if you are unreliable, then I can't use you to make sure my game day goes smoothly.
I generally agree.
I think people insisting a table run, is because they are operating out of a sense of fear. They are afraid if they turn people away, that those people will not come back.
All the regions that use an RSVP system, and turn folks away who haven't RSVPd, are evidence to the contrary.
I'm not so much concerned about the rules of perception vs. stealth, or grapple vs. moving, as those can easily be mistaken and ultimately don't make a huge difference with this situation.
What I'm more concerned about is the GM arbitrarily negotiating the release of the familiar(spellbook) for 2,000gp. That is clearly not in the scenario.
One of the actions you can take while maintaining a grapple, is to move half your speed.
PRD; Grapple wrote:
Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
But unless you have the Snatch special ability, you cannot fly away with a critter you've grabbed on the same round you grabbed them.
I think you are missing the trees for the forest.
An individual, nature based or not, could find their own individual reason why being a part of the Society was for them or not. It is not likely they would be doing so for strictly nature based reasons.
Nature based factions, however, are going to be focused on nature things, not gathering artifacts. So I don't see why a whole faction that's nature based would care to have influence in the society.
Coming up with a reason for that is not the same as individualistic reasons, and I think would feel very forced and contrived just to support a niche that doesn't have direct faction support.
I don't feel its necessary or good for the overall story integrity of the organized play campaign to try and shoehorn something like this into the campaign, unless there was a driving metaplot reason to do so.
Talon Stormwarden wrote:
There aren't any rules for it written anywhere that I'm aware. But modules are written for four players, so it makes sense.
It does not make sense to award max gold even if say they miss half of it.