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

David Haller's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 492 posts (545 including aliases). 2 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 492 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Well, it was just badly written, and then the source was never edited (or edited poorly).

Hey! A game book!

As a GM, I'd rule it by the actual, correct uses of action types: aggression a free action, defense and warning immediate actions.

There is no "RAW" because the action types for defense and warning are simply not compatible with free actions, so if it's PFS, you'd just have to deal with table variation.

It's an infrequent-enough ability (I think at max PFS level you can use it 4 times a day?) that it shouldn't pose too much of a problem; it's worth bringing up to the GM prior to play, though, to get a head's-up as to his or her ruling.


I think you'll see them at the more "major" cons.

I have one - I think maybe I got it at Dragon Con?

I'd expect them to be at Origins, for example... cons like that.

Maybe Scarab? Probably if you contact the gaming organizer at a con, they'll have some idea of the kinds of boon available (though often those are only finalized days prior).

strayshift wrote:

This spell puts your perception into orbit:

Yes, I use this spell often (my PFS ranger always takes it).

I played a scenario in which the BBEG was incorporeal, invisible, stationary, and hiding inside (improved cover) the top of a 100+ foot tall tree: essentially +58 to stealth.

My ranger, with acute senses cast, rolled a 71 perception check (+52 perception, rolled a 19), spotted the BBEG, and then - courtesy of improved precise shot, favored enemy undead, a seeking, holy bow, and arrows treated with ghost salt - proceeded to annihilate said BBEG with a full round of attacks.

Very, very nice spell!


I see no reason to require some kind of punitive fix ("sorry, you'll have to retrain - how much prestige do you have?")

Just fix all the stuff that's wrong with as few tweaks as possible, then maybe sign off on it on the most current chronicle ("fixed character: DCH").

The one place I'd be a little less magnanimous is equipment or magic items the character bought "based on" what he thought his character was; if he can no longer use the Hat of OMG, or the Scorpion Whip of Ouch! +2, he still has to sell it per PFS standard rules - he can't "cash it in" for full value. Or he can keep it, and try to work towards using the items legitimately after he gains a level or two. There is some small value in learning the PFS specifics prior to play!

Having played PFS for six years (since Season 1), and having brought a number of characters up through the ranks (levels 18, 12, 12, 11, 11, 7, 7, 4, and a handful of 1s), I can say I don't ever remember needing "more weapon options", even one time.

Home game? Sure. But in PFS, there's pretty much never a wind wall, fickle winds, or much in the way of disarmers or sunderers. Yes, I can think of some scenarios I might be able to finagle some weapon-snatching as a GM (and I have done so a couple of times), but it's pretty rare. As I say, I've never had it done to me as a player.

It's my main objection to the switch-hitter ranger (that darling of ranger guides) in PFS: it's just not necessary.


In PFS, one character can cast Continual Flame for another because it actually IS permanent.

So the same logic doesn't hold for secret chest, which lasts a long time, but not forever.


Levels 2-3 are pretty much "if you die, you stay dead". Take care at those levels!

As for applying chronicles to a dead character: no, you can't do that. Clever way to eventually "afford" a raise dead for the character, but... No!

If you don't want to waste those 6 or so scenarios you played with the character, you can always use his death as a "brother" backstory when you reroll!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I start all my characters at the minimum age for their class (per CRB), and then I add the Season # to determine their age in a given scenario - kind of my own private joke about the lack of continuity in a PFS character's life.

Of course, this makes my PFS 18th level sorceress, at most, 22 years old (Season 6), which is a pretty terrifying notion.


I haven't really kept track, but I'd say I have a PC death about once every scenario? That's an average, though, and the pattern is more realistically a large number of scenarios with no deaths, and then one with many (or a TPK).

I've presided over the TPK of 10 scenarios (Murder on the Silken Caravan, Our Lady of Silver, Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible, Citadel of Flame, The Heresy of Man I, The Flesh Collector, Dalsine Affair, Among the Gods, The Immortal Conundrum, Elven Entanglement) and 2 modules (Feast of Ravenmore, Cult of the Ebon Destroyers), so just those TPKs account for probably 60-70 character deaths (most were full tables). Since I've run 70ish games, those alone figure an average of 1 death/table.

However, if you remove the TPKs from the data pool, total PC deaths, on average, greatly drop. I can't remember them all, but I'd ballpark it around 10-20, so let's call that about 15, or one per four tables.

So average PC deaths/table? About 1.2/1
Median PC deaths/table? about 1/4

Beware of averages!


I'm only set to GM in the coming month - no playing.

So I will be making NOTHING!

(I'd make a Psychic if I could.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in Jiggy's camp - you just have to trust in an honor system.

It was the same issue with 3.5 organized play campaigns when the system got bloated - there's just no way for one person to meaningfully grasp all the rules and character abilities, so you just assume the player's know what they're doing (and aren't malicious).

And that's probably 90% accurate, which is good enough to keep a sustainable campaign.

It's more of a problem for GMs when running high-tier scenarios, because it requires far more prep, looking things up and reviewing unfamiliar abilities and spells (and planning for their strategic application). The option is simply to not run high-tier.

I'm ready for Pathfinder 2, myself, but until then, I'm just going to let my players do their thing.


René P wrote:
Unknown reason as to why he read it before hand. He has extremely limited GMing experience to my knowledge so I doubt it was for GM prep.

Well, in this instance, it's reasonable to assume he simply wanted foreknowledge of the scenario. Perhaps he wanted to see if it "fit" his character - who knows. But it's cheating, flat-out.

That said, PFS obviously does allow people with foreknowledge to play the game - namely, those who've GMed it or (in less common circumstances) will be GMing it soon, and just had to read it already (maybe they're running it tomorrow). Now, there are GM-star replayers as well. The Guide is pretty strict that these players have to play "dumb".

I'd prefer the person simply not play at my table - I loathe a cheat - but if somehow that wasn't an option, I'd completely forbid any kind of in-scenario prep (no purchases), disallow spell selections and other preparations which implied a knowledge of the scenario, and simply block any attempt to use knowledge of the scenario ("nope, there's no secret door in this room" "No, the cleric has no wands on him - why do you ask?") If this inconveniences the other players, I'd make sure they understood that it was a consequence of someone having read the scenario.

Cheating needs to be shameful. It really needs to be harshly punished, but the nature of PFS makes that challenging (it's hard to really ban someone from play, for example). I've seen Organized Play campaign in which it became "the culture" (Living Forgotten Realms) to seek out scenarios with favorable items and so on based on foreknowledge, and that's a very slippery place. LFR was so bad that people would publish spoiler lists of scenarios with listed items and boons so that folks could plan their farms (oops, I mean play schedule) accordingly.

I certainly hope this new player at least felt stupid, if not embarrassed.


If a GM feels comfortable revising the faction missions to accommodate current factions, I'd say "do it" - a major aspect of part IV is illustrating how "corrupted" the Society has become by internecine intrigues, and the need for "true Pathfinders" to transcend it. It just has to be meaningful.

Of course, this violates the PFS edict forbidding scenario rewrite. I'm chaotic neutral, though, so...

Here's how I'd handle it:

(i) "Guys, factions are a thing in this, so do you mind if I rewrite the faction missions accordingly?"

(ii) If "yes", do I feel comfortable rewriting them? In other words: can I write? do I understand game balance? do I feel I can retain the existing difficulty of the scenario doing this?

(iii) if "yes", rewrite.



Zwolfe124 wrote:

Yeah I know they dont carry over, which is very unfortunate. But I do really like blood money idea. Whats a lil HP damage.

Yes, well, blood money is strength damage, which is sometimes a bit scary for (strength-dumped) casters!

Good idea to have a wand of lesser restoration on hand, and the ability to use it.


Unless the scenario has weather impacting encounters - that is, written in - it's simply a mechanical layer which slows things down, anyway. Home play? okay, I guess, but in a 4-5 hour game, you just need to keep things streamlined!

That said, I mention non-mechanical weather to set atmosphere (meaning no fogs, etc) as needed.


Lost Demiurge wrote:
Is there a list somewhere, that spells out the vanities? I'd dearly love the noble title one for my Taldoran swashbuckler, but can't seem to find anything official on them...

It's in the Pathinder Society Field Guide.


I think what the OP is asking is "now that we have some new classes, will we get access to some new races? Ideally, those well-suited to certain of the new classes; orcs, for example, seem thematically suited to the shaman class."

(And when IS the Pathfinder Society going to charter a lodge in the Hold of Belkzen? High time, if you ask me!) :P

Not an official answer: don't hold your breath for access to orcs!


It's not really an issue because Trade Prince is Qadira (Exchange) and Noble Title is Taldor (Sovereign).

Since you can't be a member of both factions, stacking isn't an issue.

Now, in the outlier case of "I was Qadira" (and got Trade Prince) but I switched to "Sovereign" (with access to Noble Title) then yes, you could have a nice string of titles.

In theory, you could have been Aldoran, taken Captain and Knight, switched in an earlier season to Qadira, taken Trade Prince, and switched recently to S.S. and taken a Noble Title, and be Knight Captain and Trade Prince Lord Velarrio the Faceless, Viscount so-and-so.


CyTerrin wrote:

Excellent ideas - it really needs to be player-driven, too.

A great use for any white space on a chronicle.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the practice of "resetting" character knowledge from scenario to scenario is just laughably stupid - it's probably one of the main things I'd change about PFS's "GM culture".

It's two cardinal gaming sins rolled into one: it completely destroys immersion, revealing that the character is not, in fact, a character, but is simply a collection of abilities and skills which "reforms" anew from scenario to scenario and-

It completely invalidates player knowledge of the game and player attention TO games. Pathfinder actually *is* a game, and skill in the game and "paying attention" should be rewarded, not discounted.

In short, it makes PFS scenarios instances, not episodes.


(For the record, as a GM I will certainly respect the fact that your character encountered the oozes before, and "allow" them to have the entirely reasonable - since your character is a *character* with memories and experiences - strategic recollections.)


It seems pretty clear from the guide that you get a rebuild to current XP, including replacing equipment rendered unusable by the rebuild (ie. can be "cashed in" for purchase value).

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Plus, if this was heavily exploitable how long do you think you would live if your GM was heavily opposed to it being possible?

Indeed, but the main issue with something like this - had it been viable - would be Pathfinder Society, in which GMs are bound by RAW and unable to customize scenarios.

And there's always the risk that further books will contains something which will change this argument in favor of spell batteries, and *boom*, there it is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Having reflected on this, I'm fine with the Technologist requirement.

If you ever use a very, very advanced toilet in Japan, and you experience the mystification of how do I flush this?, you will know that even full mastery of one's own technology does not necessarily prepare you to use another's!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Q.E.D, then.

Puts away his beautifully crafted PFS GM Tear Collecting Bottle... perhaps after the next book.

Just to remind, you automatically dispel your own spells.

Per PRD: "You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

That ups the efficacy a little, at least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One wonders if robots must take the Primitivist feat to make skill checks outside of Numeria.

"Ew, what is that!"

"*searching...searching*... "I don't know. How can these beings live in such filth and squalor?"

"Ugh. Let's go back to Numeria."

DRD1812 wrote:

This may be a semantic can of worms, but I was wondering if the dazing metamagic feat can apply to things like Stone Call or Ice Spears. By one reading, these spells don't actually deal damage. Rather, they create effects that deal damage incidentally (which is why they get around spell resistance). It's like suggesting that the fall damage from Create Pit or the projectiles from Fabricate Bullets would be suitable Dazing effects.

Is this an accurate reading?

That's an interesting distinction, but no.

Stone Call and Ice Spears cause damage directly through the spell effect; something like Create Pit causes a fall, but the fallcauses incidental damage, not the spell.

Similarly, a Dazing Telekinesis will not allow us to toss someone in the air, only to suffer a dazing impact upon landfall - the spell causes the fall, and the fall causes the damage.

I never really thought about it, but it's a subtle distinction - good question!

(Basic semantic distinction between cause (directly) and cause (indirectly) - the former is required for Dazing... otherwise you could cast a Dazing Summon Monster, and have a Dazing Tyrannosaurus on the loose!)


Archives of Nethys is a useful resource to (i) determine if something is PFS-legal (there's a little Glyph of the Open Road icon next to it) and (ii) see what book or resource it's in. (I think you can even click the links there and it takes you straight to the item on Amazon.)


I don't have the book yet, but just to clarify: even without Technologist, a PC (say, an inquisitor) could make a K: Engineering check and get the full range of identifying info, powers, and so on? (ie. not cap at 10 per untrained?)

That was one of the big complaints in an earlier thread.

It pretty much just impacts Disable Device and Linguistics, then?

Mydrrin wrote:

Not sure your math. My math is, a 20th level Inquisitor get 3 shots a round base + rapid shot + haste. At most 5 shots a round. Even at self buffing to the max that still around 250 damage a round if they all hit. Your feat levels are low, your to hit is low. Can you post something with what feats you have and what your to hit would be like?

Manyshot adds an arrow to the first base shot, and I'm assuming divine power rather than haste for the "haste shot", because this should be without external buffs.

Also, with keen edge, you're threatening 10% of the time, which effectively adds 1.2 "shots" (0.6 of your arrows are "trippled" to 1.8, is one way to model it)... so in essence your per-arrow damage, sans bane, is being multiplied by 7.2, not 5, which would bring *your* calculation to 360.

Pretty close to my 354.

"Your feat levels are low, your to hit is low" - I don't know what this means? If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it (possibly your confused about my two posts, but one was based on my "actual" character (15th level), and the other was elevated to 20 to compare with a theorycrafted build. Possible confusion.)

For an inquisitor? Well, assuming level 20 (even though, who plays level 20 characters?), there's the judgement of destruction (+9 with slayer), wrath (+3 morale), divine power (+6 luck), and bane (+2), so that's +20 from direct self-buffs.

He can cast GMW on his non-magical bow, making it +5. So we're at +25.

He can attack with Deadly Aim, for another +8 to damage, bringing us to +33/arrow, and I offset the attack penalty with heroism (self-buff) and attacking invisibly (greater invisilibility, a self-buff).

With a +40 Perception (+/- depending on wisdom and feats), he can plausibly be aware of enemies with enough notice to buff up for 3 rounds, enough to cast his 3 short-term buffs.

Obviously, this depends on spell selection, although it's hard to imagine an inquisitor forgoing those I've mentioned.

In any case, it can be fairly routine for an inquisitor to add +33 damage per shot, plus 4d6 from greater bane, so ~+47/arrow, not factoring in crits (doubled in frequency courtesy of keen edge, of course); at 20th level, factoring in threat probabilities, damage output is in the neighborhood of 354/round. Build does have clustered shots, of course, important given no special materials or DR-bypassing judgements in-use.

Again, this is assuming no magic items - mundane items only.

In terms of actual play, especially from 1st level, it's pretty hard to beat a ranged inquisitor for crazy damage output, and they can also do so many other things: casting spells, skill monkeys, self-buffing, and so on.

In a home game, I currently play a 15th level ranged inquisitor. We're restricted to CRB/APG only, and we're "low magic" in that we have no magic mart, and only use what we find - part of the reason I played an inquisitor was knowing of these restrictions: I wanted self-sufficiency and versatility.

Buffed up and with judgements and greater bane active, and with no magic items, he can reliably output an average of 290 damage/round (+32*/+32/+32/+27/+22; *manyshot - 1d8+24+4d6/19-20(x3))... add in magic items and the whole Pathfinder ouvre and this can rise considerably.

(If he cast greater invisibility on himself, add +2 to all of those to-hits, and make the target flat-footed for even more reliable damage output.)

Just a very versatile character with high DPS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's certainly the case that, traditionally - and in the US - the market for pen/paper RPGs has been heavily male/white. My comments will focus on the US.

I've gamed for 35 years, and in that time I've seen a considerable increase in female gamers, and have sat at plenty of 50/50 tables, but it's certainly an area which can be improved further. As for people of color, they are grossly underrepresented in pen/paper gaming - even here in Atlanta, which is demographically 54% black, I know three (serious) black gamers, which is almost crazily skewed.

This is interesting, because representation of minorities in online gaming is much greater - what gives?

Relevant aside: Many years ago I was a director at Borders, Inc, and served on its Diversity Board. One thing which puzzled us was why did our share of minority customers, and especially minority employees, trail US demographics? The basic answer turned out to be that we weren't building stores in minority neighborhoods: the retail marketplace reflects proximity. In the digital world, online sales would seem to obviate this, but retail placement still serves a marketing function which can drive online sales, so proximity of in-store displays, face-outs, and so on can affect the online retail environment.

Looking at Atlanta - again, a city whose greater metropolitan area is 54% black - I note that there are no game stores in predominantly black neighborhoods. I mean none - and we have about 20-odd game stores. So, there's basically no proximity marketing of pen/paper RPGs to black consumers in Atlanta. There are other sales venues, like Barnes & Noble, but again, mostly those are in "white" neighborhoods. The driver of RPG sales to black consumers (and I'm focusing on the black market share because I'm familiar with Atlanta) just isn't present.

Now, I have been the CEO of a publishing company, and I considered - being a gamer - launching a game publishing division, so I looked into the realities a bit: game publishers are uniquely at the mercy of physical outlets - game stores, book stores, conventions - to market their products. Paizo, too, is dependent on this framework of market proximity, and so its "target market", realistically, needs to reflect its market reach - and that's where game stores are, which is "white" neighborhoods.

That said, Paizo itself is pretty amazing in featuring - through its iconics - great variation in race and gender, so it's actually well-positioned to market to a very wide segment, demographically. The physical reach just isn't there.

Hence your "privileged white" GenCon environment.

(Internationally, you have plenty of demographic variety in gaming, because you have proximity to those groups in those nations - the Turks, for example, who are quite mad about gaming! If you go to Istanbul, I'm confident you will find game stores in Turkish neighborhoods...)

Mike Labny wrote:
Misfortune specifically states you must take the worse result. Do you not have the fortune hex?

That's the witch's misfortune hex.

At discussion here is the dual-cursed oracle's misfortune ability, which (oops) lacks the "take the worse" wording, thus opening a buffing exploit.

(Ninja'd because of my italics usage! :P)


I'm running this in a couple of weeks - now I'll be obsessed with finding the perfect Muzak.

That, or ambient music from the Vault in Fallout.

Or something like Brian Eno's Alternative 3 for that spooky, retro-tech vibe.



Da Brain wrote:

so am I understanding that your advice to me would be to avoid these three scenarios as I am a skill focused character without (so far - I will take it later) this feat?

(oh, and by the way, I enjoy both role-playing and roll-playing to resolve challenges... I do have a problem when...

No, you're not understanding my advice.

If you're the sort who enjoys puzzling things out, you'll enjoy them (probably).

If you're the sort who insists on doing everything via skill rolls, and you lack the technologist feat, then (probably) you won't.

It's been made pretty clear (from extensive discussion and a dev post) that these scenarios ARE solvable without "rolls", so you can presumably enjoy them.

"I poke it with a ten-foot pole"

"I put the hat on and jump up and down"

"I take a sip... do I feel anything?"

Old Skool!


When you have a game, the content of which draws from a comprehensive set of rules and details, you have two options:

(i) Go ahead and let players bring what they have to the table, with the understanding that it might only be a subset of the whole, and this could impose asymmetrical challenges relative to what other (more "equipped") players may experience.


(ii) You require that all players have access to the entirety of the game's ouvre, possibly at considerable expense. This assures fairness, since everyone has everything.

Also, it's not as though Pathfinder has sprung, whole-cloth, into being, like Athena from Zeus' forehead - it's an evolving game. At this very moment, scenario authors are writing encounters which may be impacted by future rules of which they are unaware. Promises of future threads, surely.

So, some scenarios have been developed which are harder-than-intended, because of lack of coordination between scenario and rules development. Some (I, for one), will enjoy a bit of role-playing in lieu of roll-playing to resolve challenges; others will not, and they can't be faulted for this - it's just not their game. Fortunately, PFS has nearly 170 scenarios, not counting specials and modules, of which only three have presented players with this little surprise.

1.8% of scenarios are impacted - hardly worthy of crisis.

The path seems clear enough - run 6-01,2, and 3 with the skill restrictions posed by Technologist, and nod understandingly at players who avoid them. It might even be courteous for organizers to mention the feat in their game-day blurbs and postings, so players can better plan around them.


pauljathome wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Please don't characterize the Paizo development teams' work as "stupid BS".
Mostly because it's that bad of an idea.

I actually quite like the idea of there being very rare knowledge's IN A HOME GAME. It adds flavor, it differentiates characters, etc.

But I think it is an awful idea in PFS where I have to make characters that are capable in a huge range of scenarios from all seasons. As stated, it greatly disadvantages some builds. It also makes for a significantly poorer game when lots of information isn't available, when the only sane lockpick is the adamantine weapon, where items on chronicle sheets are all but useless, etc

Kind of in line with my thinking.

Indeed, I'd like to make a character specifically for Season 6, and makes me realize that PFS would be much better if it were simply designed as a seasonal campaign designed for new characters each year (and scenarios ranging from 1-5 at the start to 7-11 at the end), so that a given character (and player) would actually sense a cohesive narrative.

Well, like a more episodic version of an AP.

But, it's not! So if I do roll a technologist, he might be inexplicably sent - on occasion - to such improbable realms as Tien, or the lands of the Mammoth Lords.


Joana wrote:
It's here. (You have to scroll down to the Ts, as the new PRD won't link directly to spells.) But by my reading, it's only useful to identify "items in your possession," not things you're fighting.

Hmmm, indeed.

Still useful, but not in the middle of a fight (unless maybe you can grapple and pin the robot - "it's in my possession!" - and have a liberal GM!)

I still say it's a good time to dig out the old Gamma World 1st Edition "Artifact Use and Operation" charts!

"Oops!" :P


Fromper wrote:
Natertot wrote:

One of the new spells from the Technology Guide is "Technomancy", basically detect technology. It allows the caster to make a Know:Engineering roll on Robots without having to have the Technologist Feat. While not much, it is better than nothing.

A scroll of that (with detailed explanation in the scenario) would be useful in some of these scenarios.

Oh, that's perfect.

What level is the spell? If it's 1st level, what a handy, 2-prestige wand to have.


I was reflecting on this earlier.

I, too, kind of like the idea that you need more than just conventional knowledge to understand alien technology - indeed, I'm already planning on having my inquisitor take "Technologist" at level 7 (when she'll also ramp up her K: Engineering.)

That said, I find it unfair to send characters into a situation in which their *players* are uninformed, vis-a-vis new books with radical new rules about knowledge skills (and others).

What I may do, when I eventually run said scenarios, is have the feat "provided" to the party, perhaps in the form of a loaner ioun stone (or a couple, if needed) which grants "Technologist" (akin to stones granting such feats as "Alertness", for power comparison.) I can certainly imagine a small group of hithertoo-unknown Warehouse 13 style scholars in the Pathfinder Society who have been crafting arcane means to penetrate this alien knowledge barrier. That way, I kind of "require" the feat without an expectation of retraining at the table (which is hardly reasonable).

Creative solution.

Another approach - less generous - is simply to allow a "temporary" and minor rebuild, allowing the players to swap out an existing feat for Technologist. Suspension of disbelief for purposes of playability. Kind of metagamy (okay, very), but it "works".


I'm sorely tempted to find my old 1st edition Gamma World boxed set, and use the "device" tables so that players can roll to figure tech out.

(I suppose that's well outside the PFS GM's authority though, alas...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a great prop for "I'm evil!" disguises.

"Hi, I want to infil - join - your evil cult"

"Hmmm. How do I know you're evil?"

"Check this out!" *brandishes Orphan Slayer*

"Whoah... come on in!"


They're confined to Numeria - I'd say they're rare, yes. DC (15+CR)

I'd consider a unique creature rare as well. I'd probably just call it 15 + CR, but just not give away very unique things (like class levels or whatever - I'm not familiar with 6-02 so I can't consider specifics.)

It's important not to be too harsh about DCs, because some character mechanics depend on at least knowing the type or subtype (like inquisitors, for example), and there's no cause for penalizing them unduly.


Andreas Forster wrote:
just fyi, there's a table in "Blood of Fiends" with lots of examples for cosmetic features, and translucent skin is among them. So of course that's ok. You shouldn't describe what the visible organs look like in detail, though, especially not if there are minors at the table. You never know if they are grossed out by gory descriptions ;)

In my experience, adults are much more likely to be disturbed by gore than minors are, who usually find it awesome! :P


I kind of hated the idea of season 6, but now that I'm pondering character builds to deal with robots, I'm getting kind of excited by the prospect.

THAT SAID, I'd prefer it were a mini-campaign within PFS. I'm not that keen, for example, on laser pistol-wielding PCs in, say, The Worldwound. Just have season 6 be all about Numeria, and you roll a character at the start to play through the whole season.

Indeed, from a standpoint of narrative cohesion, I'd love to see PFS 2.0, whenever it comes to pass (I suppose with the release of Pathfinder 2.0), unfold as a series of annual mini-campaigns. That would give one a much clearer idea of story arc, as well as the feel of participation in said arc (versus the current model of a PC who plays a Year one one day, a Year 3 the next, then maybe Silent Tide (hey, I missed that one!), and then off to Numeria. Or whatever.

Have a cycle of retiring Season N while you launch Season N+2, so you're always running two overlapping, but out-of-phase, campaigns. With enough players (which I think there are, now), it could work.

Until then... pew! pew!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but lasers?

How am I supposed to create a PFS version of Marvin the Martian without an Acme Disintegrating Ray Gun?

(It's not as though I'm asking for an Illudium PU-36 Space Modulator...)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll throw in with Acedio.

- are constructs
- are not animated objects
- are not objects
- remove hardness from incoming damage
- take full energy damage, which is then mitigated by hardness or other applicable resistances
- are not subject to shrink item or other spells or effects which apply to objects
- are not subject to sundering (to call out a specific effect above), though they may be in possession of things which are (though not integral weapons, which are their "natural" weapons - this may be arguable, though.)

I'm sure this can be added to, but I think it covers the basics.

The Fox wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Just jumping in to say that I agree with Andrew Christian. And yes, that means ranged weapons do half damage before applying hardness. I recommend the purchase of some durable adamantine ammunition.
Just to be clear, ranged energy weapons do 1/4 damage?

If so, malfunction becomes a far less useful spell.

"Okay, the robots are confused, and locked on each other! Everyone stand down, and let them duke it out."

*10 rounds later, as the spell winds down*

"Okay, the robots, after 10 rounds of pitched laser duel, and done... 8 damage to each other? Huh."


I think the idea of planetouched races is that there's a demon, devil, angel etc. in the bloodline a few generations removed, rather than as an actual parent - I mean, it's plane touched.

Actual devil/demon/angel parentage is where you get half-fiends and half-celestials, a whole other kettle of fish!

That said, I am partial to the whole "Rosemary's Baby" origin story for a tiefling.

As for being a skeletal being with a translucent skin and musculature - and a full on "Slim Goodbody" display of internal organs - I'm all for it if the player's willing! You're not reskinning something which has an open descriptive.

I would hope the player would be okay with me, as a GM, playing to the appearance - I mean, that's definitely coming with some baggage! (aka "roleplaying implications"). Just because there's no "mechanical effect" doesn't mean there's no effect on mechanics (like circumstance bonuses to diplomacy or intimidation, which I'd happily apply as a GM!)

As a player, I'd go a step further like having tracings of infernal runes on the bones, maybe listing the character's infernal lineage, or having subtle agonized faces - the remnants of damned souls ("devil DNA") - occasionally manifesting themselves on an expanding lung or pulsating heart. Those energy resistances must come from somewhere.

A walking anatomy lesson, you could (as a player) buy a Pathfinder Chronicle (K:Planes) and "lend" it to other characters by saying they can "read" planar lore in your revealed anatomy. (Okay, that's reskinning, but I'd go for it as a GM - I'm such a scofflaw!)

1 to 50 of 492 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.