Search Posts
Until you hit a scenario where you're suppose to keep your membership in the society a secret, and you pull out a wayfinder every time you cast a spell.Wouldn't you just shrug, put away the wayfinder, and put an extra hand on your longsword instead? Intimidating a witness won't prevent you from failing a primary or secondary success condition.
That would actually be a really tempting option, if only I hadn't spent 12,000 gp last level on the bonded item I already have.Well, you could have one half price if you used a wayfinder as an arcane bond item.Normally not an option (arcane bond is limited to amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon) but you can take the Pathfinder's Focus trait from the PFS Primer to be allowed to do so. Until you hit a scenario where you're suppose to keep your membership in the society a secret, and you pull out a wayfinder every time you cast a spell.
In Pathfinder you can't even form a wall of force into a hemisphere or ball.
Mike also required players to have a physical character sheet. If a player is only using a digital device to play their character, and it fails. Forcing them to use a pregen to finish the adventure. If bad stuff then happens to that pregen later in the game, The chronicle should be locked on the real character that the player began the game with.This would be true if GMs are following the Guide and handing out unsign chronicle sheets before the game for the player to fill out the top information. But alas, it appears that most GMs don't follow the guide with regards to chronicle sheets. At the start of a slot all GMs should have passed around a reporting/sign-in sheet. The basic downloaded sheet collects character name, character number and faction. At the end of the game the GM still needs to fill in success conditions A,B,C,D as well as prestige earned. What I was talking about the ruling that if you're using a pregen during a game and bad stuff happens. You can reassign the chronicle to a different character number. Pregen credit was originally intended for character -3. It dies, you can't afford to raise it, so you reassign the game to character -99. Allowing you to keep -3 safe. The problem is that ruling was made during a period that required players to have a physical copy of a character sheet. The current ruling allows players to not have a physical character sheet. The current rule of no physical sheet required can now lead to players needing to swap to a pregen in the middle of a game. All I was saying was if a player needed to swap during a game. They shouldn't be able to re-assign the chronicle if bad stuff happens to the pregen, and it should be locked on the character the player began the session with. Because they should not be rewarded for not being properly prepared.
Current ruling is just "have a character sheet you don't mind handing to the GM if requested". Which was made JUST as my printer ran out of ink. So yay? I do like having a physical backup copy anyway. Because I might need my laptop to look up info on my gear or a rules issue I'm unfamiliar with. Or my laptop may be getting low on power, so I have to save and shut it down. Hence why I said Mike's original ruling on the topic. Describing it as the original ruling means that it's been replaced with a newer ruling.
I was referring to Mike Brock's original ruling on the topic, hence why I said Mike required players to have a physical character sheet.
And at one point, Mike more or less said that if your pregen died, you could change the tracker sheet to pick another character to apply the chronicle to. But I'll probably need TOZ to find the link for me again cause I'm sure I'm mis-stating it again and the next twenty posters will show up to tell me I'm wrong. Mike also required players to have a physical character sheet. If a player is only using a digital device to play their character, and it fails. Forcing them to use a pregen to finish the adventure. If bad stuff then happens to that pregen later in the game, The chronicle should be locked on the real character that the player began the game with.
Once you pick a class, class feature or feat after leveling up, it is set in stone once you play that character until you spend the prescribed resources to rebuild/retrain it. Having multiple versions of a character to pick from goes against this campaign rule. If there is an ambiguous Pathfinder RPG rule debate that the GM and player can't resolve at the table. The player should play with the questionable items inert for the session, or until an official ruling can be found during play.
the resolution still needs to fall within the boundaries of campaign rules. Which means you can't be walking around with multiple versions of a single character to be selected based on the table you're sitting at.I am unfamiliar with this rule. Is your position itself an instance of table variation? I think you're confusing the difference between Pathfinder RPG game rules and the PFS Campaign rules. A player and GM working out a rules debate on a Pathfinder RPG rules issue, should not break a PFS campaign rule to do so.
You are limited to one version of a character in PFS If the player thinks it's legal then they should be able to explain their position, and perhaps sway the GM to their side. If both realize it's a gray spot. Then they will figure out a way to resolve the difference for that game, but the resolution still needs to fall within the boundaries of campaign rules. Which means you can't be walking around with multiple versions of a single character to be selected based on the table you're sitting at. If a GM or player is a problem, their local community will most likely find ways to exclude them, eliminating the problem person.
You are limited to one version of a character in PFS unless you are using the resources to change things outlined in the retraining/rebuilding rules. The best you're going to be able to do if an aspect of your character is questionable is ignore that item at the game, and play at a handicap.
A necklace is not light armor, so no it couldn't. Bracers of Armor are also not classified as light armor, so Brawling wouldn't be a valid upgrade for them either.
"this is a sword cane, but the cane part is an parasol (but doesn't give me any benefits" is stretching it, but comes down to GM call. But every NPC in the game will only see it as a sword cane. Because otherwise the character is gaining a mechanical advantage making it an illegal reskin. They'll have to tell every GM before every game that they wield a sword cane that is decorated to look like a parasol. Since he has to always refer to it as a sword cane for mechanical reasons. It's pointless to reskin it. Because if the GM asks him what he is holding they should never describe it only as a parasol. If the player wants a long lasting legal way to make a sword cane look like a parasol the character can buy a hat of disguise.
GMs not enforcing the rules doesn't make something legal either. You simply don't want to follow a campaign rule, and you're using whatever justification you can find in order to feel better about your decision.
Combining a parasol and a sword cane would not be legal under the current PFS campaign rules. You didn't ask if others thought it was a cool/fun idea. You asked if it was PFS legal to do it. Why you're doing something does not change whether it is campaign legal or not. You don't like the legal options, and you're looking for others to support your choice not to follow a rule.
Aside from that specific adventure, you could perhaps play a Bladebound Magus and adopt Gamin as your black blade. Among other things, black blades become specifically immune to the 'broken' condition. You can't make Gamin your blackblade. The blackblade is not like an arcane bonded weapon where you can swap in different items. The blackblade is a specific class feature that only has the abilities detailed under it's description.
In the event that a character sheet is no longer accessible due to a loss of battery power, the player may play the pregenerated character and apply the scenario’s rewards to his original character. In all cases where the GM applies one of the above remedies, rewards for all players are based on the lowest subtier played during the scenario.This last part seem unfair to the other players who, by no fault of their own, could see the rewards reduced because of another player's action, or inaction. If a player has a habit of not having physical backups to their digital device, and frequently having their device fail during a game. I think many players in their area will begin to avoid having them at the table.
My point is that if he stops playing it now, he doesn't have to rebuild it, and if it becomes legal he can resume playing it again.If you just sit on it for a while, play something else for a bit, the archetype might be made legal in the future.That wouldn't make the illegal character legal, unless he paid all the retraining costs of making a basic magus into the "now legal" archetype. Temporarily shelving the character would only be an option if the character was leveled entirely with GM credit from level 2+. He could only have player credit at level 1. If he played his character to level 4. He would have to rebuild his character with options that were legal when the character was played, and then retrain into the archetype after it becomes legal.
On the chronicle sheet you don't have to list everything you bought, and only include a total GP spent, but it doesn't hurt to do. Just remember that everything you buy worth more than 25gp needs to listed on your Item Tracking Sheet, and there is an entry for the sequenced number of the chronicle the purchase was made.
But it is a PFS house rule. It isn't a house rule. It is a part of the Golarion setting, which PFS is set in. Now when an archetype adds a feature to a class it's swapped out for something else. What do you want a paladin to give up to get their deity's favored weapon? Because the PFS campaign shouldn't be giving out extra class features to one particular class for free.
The bolded portion says that you support the GM having the option to make a decision that best benefits the individual player or table. The problem is that to do so you support the GM's ability to choose to ignore campaign rules to enhance that table's experience. When someone shows up with an illegal character. The GM should just explain what PFS is and why the person's own character can't be used. Then give them their options to participate. Then let them choose the option they wish to use. Even if it means they choose to walk away. A GM shouldn't ever resort to allowing an illegal character into a game, even if it's just a one time thing.
Nefreet, in this post, in another thread, you mention you enforce the skill checks involved with the fly skill even if the players aren't required to make them by their local GMs. Why don't you allow them to ignore the skill checks if they want? Why is it important to enforce skill checks to fly, when you say it should be okay to ignore some campaign rules, some of the time, to ensure players are having fun? When the players can have as much fun playing by all the rules after the organizer/GM explains things to them.
Talk to the owner of the store, and tell him about the cause of the fall in attendance, and mention that you might need to take corrective action against the players harming the community. Most store owners will be very interested in anything that could harm their business. Then talk to the players in private and tell them that you have had complaints that they aren't being team players, and if they don't start working on contributing more to the games that you'll need to ask them find a new group to play with. Clearly tell them the problem, how they can improve, and the consequences. The important thing is to be clear about what they need to do, so it will be up to them to comply. If they choose not to comply with the warnings to improve their attitude. Then you shouldn't feel bad about having to ask them to leave. If they end up getting banned from that location they can always try running a game of their own.
Only one of the four would need the text detailing the rules of combining all four to create a Suli character.
First bullet point under the prestige table on pg. 26. Which points back to pg. 23 of the campaign guide under conditions, death and expendables. The soul was removed from the body, so the effect (I assume a spell or curse) that triggered it would need to be cleared before the end of the game or the character gets marked as dead.
If you use a level 7 pregen you have to assign it to a character who is level 6 or lower, but you do not apply the chronicle sheet to the character until they hit level 7. Now for example if the character is 6.2 and plays a mod worth 3xp. You would then jump to 7.2, add then add the waiting pregen credit. Which would bump you to level 8. If a character hits 7 and they have a pile of 7-11 pregen credits assigned to a character. The pregen credits are applied chronologically in the order that they were played/assigned, and the character is leveled as appropriate. This leveling can affect if they get in-subtier or out-of-subtier rewards for certain chronicle sheets.
That's interesting, I've not seen or heard of that race before now. what's the wording on the new Boons? can a person use one New (say a new Aasimar boon) and one old (an older Tiefling boon) to make one, or does one have to use two newer boons... One of the two boons used would need the extra text detailing the rules to merge the two into a new race option.
While you can normally add most magical armor special abilities to Bracers of Armor. Brawling can only be added to light armor, and Bracers of Armor are not classified as light armor.
That thread is from before the current rules were put in place, so it is no longer relevant.
I believe slow track was only allowed during the grandfathering period of time when Eyes was put on a hard 33xp limit to start. Before the 33xp hard cap to start a lot of people had Race for the Runecarved Key xp or Ruby Phoenix Tournament putting them over 33, and they needed to play parts of Eyes on slow to keep from hitting 14 before they finished part 4.
|
