|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That is the intent.
Essentially, you must update your character to be legal before you play again. Any allowed rebuilds must be done before you play again.
So if you are playing before the season 7 guide comes out, and you want to do a rebuild, you will need to do so with the season six rules.
But if the play session happens after the season seven guide hits the street, and you do the rebuild after the guide hits the street, then use the season seven guide.
In other words, it doesn't matter which guide is in effect when the errata comes out, but rather which guide is in effect when you do your rebuild.
1) Yes, I would say that the pregen could gain the item for the character in question.
2) The condition (and getting turned evil requiring an atonement I would consider a condition) must be cleared before the scenario ends. Note, the item doesn't turn you evil.
3) It makes you move one step closer to evil. As long as the character is not LN, N, or CN (even if an atonement would be required to regain class abilities), then an atonement is not necessary immediately.
4) It costs only 500 gold for an atonement unless you want to recover lost powers. In which case it costs 3000gp. My inclination is if you have lost powers, you don't have the choice which type of atonement to use.
5) Kyra's equipment, if sold at half price, would be worth, oil of align weapon 150gp, oil of daylight 375gp, potion of eagle's splendor 375gp, scroll of comprehend languages 12gp 5sp, scroll of lesser restoration 187gp 5sp, scroll of magic circle against evil 187gp 5sp, wand of cure light wounds 375gp, antitoxin 25gp, thunderstone x 2 30gp, +2 breastplate 2,225gp, +1 scimitar 1,157gp 5sp, ring of protection +1 1,000gp, cloak of resistance +1 500gp, phylactery of positive channeling 5,500gp, and about 90gp in other items and actual gold. The armor and scimitar could pay for the atonement with 225gp left over, to help pay for a raise dead with the phylactery.
So in short... He would only have needed an atonement if he started at LN, N, or CN. Even losing your class abilities would not have required an atonement to continue playing the character. He can definitely get the boon the pregen earned, once the character reaches the level of the pregen. And he can use the equipment of the pregen to help pay for the atonement, should he need one.
I'm curious about the final encounter.
Anyone have any idea on how to keep the players on task with following the script of how the final encounter is supposed to go? In general, I prefer a more free-flowing conversational type thing. But this almost requires that they proceed from part 1 through part 3 in order. What happens if they start asking to make Perception and Sense Motive and Bluff checks and such that are totally off script or part of a later part of the script?
Chris Mortika wrote:
I see two issues with this.
1) why do you need to be contacted? If another mark is made later, you'll notice when you look again the next time the player does something evil at your table.
2) by not marking evil a few times first, and going straight to atonement or evil, you aren't following the guidelines in the guide. If they truly don't work, then lets try to fix them. But ignoring them isn't really the answer.
Chris Mortika wrote:
So would you go straight to evil for a single act?
Or would you just mark an evil act on their chronicle sheet and then require an atonement once they've committed several of those?
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Not so. The errata erased the third sentence. But not the second to last, which essentially says the same thing. They omitted sentence three because it was redundant. But the second to last still allows you to take multiple.
You aren't finding it, cause there's nothing to find. The CRB, which was quoted above, says exactly, that drawing an arrow costs a free action.
Nope. Never seen a fireball get cast either.
Stop inserting your reality into our fantasy.
Or rather just reread my entire post and stop cherry picking sigle lines out of context.
James Wygle wrote:
In this case, even though verisimilitude is completely broken (fireball!), we would need a complete rewrite if the class and entire firearm mechanic, to make a gunslinger viable and also realistic.
So for now, let them have the same action economy as an Archer, for more feats and money.
They rescinded the FAQ limiting free actions. It continues to be the sole discretion of the GM.
But let's look at this logically.
Archers are required to use a free action every time the draw an arrow. Notching and drawing the bowstring back is considered part of shooting. But archers take as many free actions as they need based on how many arrows they shoot.
So, if the intention was that gunslingers could not use thier feats and iterative attacks, then they never would have allowed them to reload as a free action or allowed rapid shot to work with guns.
I would be opposed to any suggestion that gunslingers are arbitrarily limited in the number of times they can shoot, if archers are not.
That being said, I'd fully support a GM saying that a gunslinger is limited to thier max number of shots a round in free actions, as long as they get to make use of thier full BAB worth if iterative, feats like rapid shot, and spells like haste. What thus means is, double barreled guns only get a double shot in the first round.
As for the noodles:
When was the last time a VC briefing including notes on the local cuisine? I don't remember one.
The fact this is a semi-investigative scenario with political intrigue... the idea of a higher up saying something out of sorts like, "Oh and you must try out the noodle cart, they are divine!" is just the sort of code a film noir or spy thriller would use.
Ok, so now I'm confused.
If you feel all my posts are relevant to your question, and thus you aren't addressing me directly with your confusion, why are you still confused?
The preponderance of responses have answered similarly to me.
So if you feel that my answers directly answer your question, why are we still trying to get this clarified?
What's still unclear? And what kind of response, exactly, would make it clear for you?
The Fox wrote:
This is a very adult way of handling what can be a very difficult situation.
If two people cannot be adult about a conflict, and come to some sort of compromise, then both don't get to play that character that day.
A GM always has the right to ask a disruptive player to leave his table.
If you go back and reread my posts, I've done exactly as you asked.
In a vacuum, GMs should change nothing, but mistakes happen. We are all human.
In the real world, with infinite input from the players by way of thier actions, changes can, will, and may need to change. It's all contextual and circumstantial.
Hope that helps.
I can't agree with any of that. There are certain pregens that I would certainly suggest a new player not try (Harsk), there are several pregens that are quite optimized at what they do. Kyra is quite optimized at hurting undead and healing.
Just because build choices aren't the standard most optimized choices, does not make them "uniformly awful to play with."
In many cases of errata, changes, clarifications, and such, the Guide to Organized play has a rather conservative set of options for retraining and rebuilding. Typically, it has to invalidate (or make them illegal to the campaign) the options you've chosen before you can rebuild them.
But in several circumstances, the rules in the Guide and Additional Resources don't cover or come into conflict with one another, what happens when a clarification, errata or change is made. (e.g. the Warpriest primary ability score changing. Additional resources indicated a certain level of change allowed, that came into conflict with the Guide allowing a full rebuild because of an ability score change. PFS campaign leadership eventually clarified that in the case of the Warpriest you could use the Guide retrain rules rather than the additional resources rule.)
So, in the case of rebuilds, as always, look to the Guide or Additional Resources for how it should work. In some corner cases, those rules don't work well or don't apply, and so asking on the forums for clarification for what is allowed is always a good option.
In this case, you are lucky, that the PFS leadership team felt the change was big enough to allow for a full refund of that enchantment if you so desired.
Andrew Roberts wrote:
As much as my previous post discussed story over numbers, this is a game that has mechanics surrounding how to play it. And rather than purposefully make a bunch of sub-optimal choices simply to fit a story, I try to make as many optimal choices that fit my story as I can.
So far, the only pregen I have an issue with, is Harsk. Because his story didn't just get in the way of the mechanics, but actually make him an ineffective character at higher levels. At least the original iteration. There was a small rebuild after the NPC Codex came out, that gave him rapid shot at 7th level, which allowed him to at least shoot his bow once a round, instead of once every other round.
But his story essentially says, "He's better with his axe, but uses his crossbow instead." So those of us who care about roleplaying the character's story, want to use his crossbow instead of his axe. Because that's who Harsk is. Those who don't care about the pregen's story, will often choose to use the Axe, because he's quite effective with it.
While I don't expect all the standard optimal choices be made of crossbow mastery, deadly aim, rapid shot, or even the vital strike chain of feats... I would prefer that the build choices for the iconics not only fit their story, but had some optimal choices to use that fit their story.
Other than Harsk, though, I really enjoy most of the pregens. I've seen a confused Valeros kill an optimized barbarian.
John Compton wrote:
It has irked me as a campaign participant...
I am largely of this opinion. But seeing as how its perfectly legal, I usually just frown when I see it being done. I might raise an eyebrow, or say, "really?" If I'm advising a new player, I do not advise them to do this sort of thing and I also tell others, who if are in my presence, that is poor form to advise others to do this.
But I suppose that's the purist or old school roleplayer in me. The Grognard. My experience has been, that the character matters, and verisimilitude matters. And if the character changes mid-stream, then its really not the sum of all its experiences. It is a metagame choice made simply for power, survivability and optimization.
What I've grown to realize though, is that this is how a video game plays. I love Mass Effect (all three parts) and Dragon's Age (all iterations so far). But I make the choice not to use the rebuild options in the video game. Because to me, the story of who my character is matters. Even in a video game where nobody but me and the 1's and 0's of code care. But I understand that those options are available in the game, because the consumers of video games like those options. They like to be able to re-optimize their character once they figure out how the game plays. They like to make optimal choices that negate the chance of death, or to some degree challenge, even on hard or suicide mode. For them, the challenge is avoiding the challenge by making the perfect choices before the challenge arrives. For me, I like beating the challenge in spite of the (even mistaken) sub-optimal choices I've made. My first run through of Dragon's Age, I hadn't played a story driven video game in probably 15 years, and did not realize there were all these side quests (or that I couldn't go back to them after completing the primary storyline). So the game was designed to be challenging by reaching the end at 20th or so level at the end. And I completed it at 14th level because I missed all the side-quest experience. I felt both foolish and prideful at that accomplishment.
If we want to get the game to expand and grow with new people, we have to find those people somewhere. And not all groups of people we pull into our favorite passtime are going to come in with the same Grognard attitude that I have. And so I've come to accept that others may have differing starting attitudes. Ones that may never change. And if we want to keep them in our hobby, to keep it growing and expanding, we have to accept that this attitude is going to stay.
I may not like it, I may not teach it, and I may council against teaching new folk who have no opinion one way or another to approach the game in that manner, I'm not going to outright denigrate those who come in with that manner of game play.
Its legal, and by the very nature of how those people learned to play games, that is an accepted method of optimization. To them, the story of the character doesn't matter, but rather the numbers behind the character are what matter.
TL;DR: To each their own.
Getting a special the weekend before the con is akin to trying to do your homework the night before it's due.
We get what you are saying. And we aren't trying to brush your concern aside.
But this is how Gen Con has worked. If this helps you figure out what you wish to volunteer for in the future, then please do use the information for that.
But the scenarios have basically come out the Friday before the weekend before Gen Con. That's just the way it works.
I suppose you could just say "the party feeds you and waters you" but I would have expected that to require some sort of heal check.
Coma patients die all the time,while under the best health care in the world. And they often die of blood poisoning, infection, or dehydration as complications of the reason they are in a coma. And this happens even when being watered and fed by a nurse.
So non-con diseases should be resolved.
Luke Parry wrote:
If you don't require them to at least pay the cost for a remove disease, then the disease has zero effect, and thus its challenge is nothing. And the challenge of a disease should not be nothing.
And sorry, but a non-con ability score going to zero isn't meaningless. You go into a coma and can easily die of starvation or dehydration, even if you have someone caring for you.
And the guide to organized play specifically says these things should be resolved before the end of a scenario. Which means you should actually resolve it. And if time is short, and you can't wait for a poor rolling PC to roll another 100 times, then the purchase of spell casting may be necessary to enforce.
My wife is prepping this, and she brought this issue up immediately. Any feedback on how to handle this, as it seems quite important, would be helpful.
The only thing I'd say about handwaving diseases and insanities, is that those things are included as part of monsters and helps create that monster's CR. If you handwaved it due to the nature of organized play, then you are negating that part of the challenge. As such it needs to be resolved before the chronicle is handed out.
And if there isn't time, then some gold needs to be spent on remove disease (or whatever works on insanity.)
It's part of the challenge and if no resolution is required, then that aspect of the challenge is nullified.
If there is a cleric with the group, then I'll handwaved it, under the assumption that they have the spells to resolve eventually.
Luke Parry wrote:
Non Con damaging diseases cannot be handwaved. The Guide makes it clear that it must be resolved.
Eh... Playing it like you are parsing a legal document reminds me of my high school days when we would spend a week writing our wish with our best teenage legalese.
It really invites the player vs GM attitude. Although it does teach the GM to be tighter with thier language.