Sorry for adding to the discussion and coming in late so I might have missed something. Having a polymorph spell on you does not stop you from baleful polymorph, the spell itself dispels any polymorph spells on you if you fail to resist the spell.
Sorry if this has been brought up already.
Am I missing something?
Lady Ophelia wrote:
Since then I have stopped using a GM Screen on the table (I still have a custom one for reference).
I think the biggest thing I have learned is to enjoy playing with the players not playing the game. There is a distinction between the two. One of the main reason I still go to conventions is to meet new people and to get different perspectives of how to enjoy playing with all new people. Like I posted above responding to Chris I change how I GM based on the players at my table. I have learned how to read players quickly to see what they most enjoy in the game to make the game more enjoyable for them.
Drogon thanks for the Kind words, I still look forward to the day I can come up there and play/GM games at your store.
This is what I would suggest, already knowing about your hatred of Gunslingers.
Just GM Home PFS games, that way you can restrict the class.
Actions like this in an open event or convention, especially if it is not a local event will get you uninvited from said event.
How have you so far gotten away from not getting complaints sent to your VL or VC? Keep doing that.
Also don't GM here in San Antonio because I promise you that you will get a table with all Gunslingers... ;)
walks up to the top of the mountain
Damn, it was a pain in the ass getting past those Yetis...
sees the devastation from the explosions all around him
What happened? Where did everyone go?
Did Kyle's head finally explode?
Chris Mortika wrote:
Congrats for making it past the yetis.
I actually qualified at Gen Con, it has taken me this long just to figure out how to get past those damn yetis!
Chris Mortika wrote:
You've done a great job, keeping up the list of allowed gods in PFS. Have you done any other organizing work for the campaign, or for your own convenience?
My next goal is to list legal Animal Companions/Familiars and the rules around them, I see that pop up around the forums a lot.
Chris Mortika wrote:
If so, what sort of effect do you think that's had on your GMing style?
Well I know what Deities are legal with a lot more detail now.
Chris Mortika wrote:
How would you describe your GMing style, for that matter?
I don't really have a GMing style for PFS. My goal is to adjust how I gm depending on the group around me. I have gotten much better at that over the years.
And Thanks everyone!
The Guide already allows Some Rebuilds options for Playtesting.
PFS Guide pg 27 wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Wait they make the Folio available in Women Sizes?...;)
I noticed something, the Poisoner Rogue archetype ability Master Poisoner is legal while the Alchemist discovery Poison Conversion is not. They both end up doing the same thing though they go about it differently.
APG pg 134 wrote:
Master Poisoner (Ex): At 3rd level, a poisoner can use Craft (alchemy) to change the type of a poison. This requires 1 hour of work with an alchemist’s lab and a Craft (alchemy) skill check with a DC equal to the poison’s DC. If successful, the poison’s type changes to contact, ingested, inhaled, or injury. If the check fails, the poison is ruined. The poisoner also receives a bonus on Craft (alchemy) skill checks when working with poison equal to 1/2 her rogue level. This ability replaces trap sense.
UC pg 24 wrote:
Poison Conversion: By spending 1 minute, the alchemist can convert 1 dose of poison from its current type (contact, ingested, inhaled, or injury) to another type. For example, the alchemist can convert a dose of Small centipede poison (an injury poison) to an inhaled poison. This process requires an alchemy lab. An alchemist must be at least 6th level before selecting this discovery.
I will admit it takes a bit more work for the Rogue ability to use because it requires a roll, but the roll is easy to succeed at.
The main difference
Master Poisoner takes 1 hour vs. poison Conversion taking 1 minute. While an hour can be a problem in a pinch you can easily have them done prior to an adventure and I see no reason it would not keep converted between adventures
Master poisoner requires a skill check vs. poison Conversion not requiring one. This could be a problem at low levels but craft alchemy and the bonus you get from the archetype make this roll not that difficult.
Master poisoner you get at level 3 vs. poison Conversion you can't get until level 6.
To get Master poisoner you lose to rogue abilities trapfinding and trap sense, not huge loses vs. poison Conversion you just pick it up as a discovery with no prerequisite.
Though they are different in the way they get to the end product they both do the same thing, you can change the poison’s type to contact, ingested, inhaled, or injury.
I am not sure I understand why one is not allowed when the other is. I would love to see that reconsidered.
On that same line of thought because of similar reasons I would argue that Daggermark poisoner should be made legal as well. It also goes so well with the Assassins’ Guild vanity.
As far as I am aware there is no connection between the Golarion deities and Dragons other then the god of metallic dragons, Apsu and the god some chromatic dragons follow Dahak.
And paladins can't be any alignment other then Lawful Good and can only follow gods that are Lawful Good, lawful natural or neutral good.
Where are you getting your info from because I don't know of any book that describes what you have been told.
Though I can't say for sure since I can't read Mike's mind (thank god/s!) but I suspect it will be a gen con boon only. You had to run at least 8 games to get that boon.
Though unlikely, you may find someone willing to trade the boon. There has been one who did in the trade boon thread but it went fast.
Kyle Baird wrote:
Some day I'll swing through Colorado for some PFS. Oh, and after doing it at least 20 times (officially recorded), sitting at Doug's table isn't much of a reward! ;-)
Oddly I was just thinking the same...
Back on topic...
Here locally, except for me, Awards for GMs that help them as GMs never really go over well. Most of our GMs would prefer awards that help them as players.
There are 2 NPCs that always seem to get players in trouble and I think they are secretly villains!!
Yargos Gill & Nigel Aldain!
There is a process for a GM to request an alignment be changed to evil based on if the Characters has become wantonly evil, and whose actions are are deliberate and without motive or provocation. But Chris you or otherwise correct, a GM can't make the call without going through the process as described on pages 33-34 of the guide.
Actually the reason for it may be my entire Fault...
Josh Frost was originally intended to allow Higher Caster level Potions, Wands and Scrolls at higher then Min Level, but it seems I may have inadvertently pushed the exact opposite when Mark was Temp in control of PFS and he went with that...
Last gencon they were allowing old tokens to be used.
Odd enough mine were not allowed last or this Gen Con.
It must be a difference of who is giving out the boons.
But in the Past I was told by Mike that the Tokens were only good until before the next Gen Con, though his policy may have changed on that.
Felix Gaunt wrote:
3 Gen Con Tokens: I believe 2 tokens = 1 boon of your choice? Obviously to be used at next Gen Con
They will have new tokens for next Gen Con and the prior years tokens will not be good for the event.
In the past you could use them at PaizoCon but this year PaizoCon changed to the new ones.
well, you can think of it like someone darting from hiding place to hiding place.
That is the way I was seeing it and that is what was causing the problem.
If you are moving 30' (or even 60' hasted) into the open to make an attack you are not using the ability to move from cover to cover. And I was seeing the new errata rule specifically to address to inability before to move from cover to cover or sneak out an kill someone before being seen.
The limitation on how far you can do it I see in the rule makes more sense to me, and I may use that limitation in my Home game, but not in PFS games.
They changed stealth. If he ends his turn without cover or concealment the stealth ends, but if he is able to move and attack before using all of his actions for that round he gets the benefit of being hidden.
So I can't and won't answer everyone in this thread but I want to point out this bolded post.
If the rules actually said it that way it would be a lot clearer and the intent would be obvious, as it is, it does not read that way.
That said, I looked further in the post you all keep quoting with quotes that don't answer my question, and I found one that actually does..
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Stealth does break at the end of the turn if you don't regain cover/concealment... that was the change we put into the book.
Right there makes it clear that I was wrong and you can walk around a room in circles if you start your turn in stealth and stay in stealth until the end of you turn even if your movement does not allow you to finish the action behind concealment.
That intent needs to be added to an FAQ or the next printing, because as it reads now it makes it seem you have to be able to start and end in concealment even if you are interrupted in the middle of that action and never get behind the concealment.
I was seeing it as used for close targets to your concealment that limits your time in the open therefore limits your chance of detection. Kind of like the Silent Kills you see in stealth games.
The actual intent allows someone in stealth hasted to walk around with 60 movement all over a room not being concealed in full daylight but never being seen, so what is actually in the book made more sense to me then the quoted intent.
Yeah I read both those statements, but neither of them change how I read it. Both of those just confirm that you can attack in the middle of moving between concealment (breaking the stealth at that moment).
I am not disputing you can't attack while moving between concealment breaking your stealth. I am saying if you you move beyond the point of ever being able to get behind concealment you are no longer in stealth.
Neither of those posts contradict that reading of the rule.
Though I thought I already explained it, I will gladly do so again.
Core pg 106 wrote:
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment.
So here is the condition for remaining in stealth after leaving concealment, it requires you to succeed at a stealth check at the end of your turn in cover or concealment. You can break that stealth during that action (attack) but the breaking of that stealth does not change the fact you still need to qualify for the condition of stealth before that breaking of it, and those qualification require you to be able to start and end in concealment, even if something interrupts that action before it is complete (attacking).
That may have not been the intent of the rule but that is how it reads. If they had a different intent I would love to see that post.
Saint Caleth wrote:
I have noticed a trend of Race Boons being for GMs only. There is a possibility that the Race boon make gave for the con was given to the GMs only.
Michael Brock wrote:
The plan all along was to allow the boon to be placed on a new character to work toward the prestige class. However, the idea was shouted down before the full plan could be offered.
Mike I don't think this was clear when you made this idea known. I think many of us, including myself, were under the assumption the boon of making a Hellknight would be only available to the PC that played through the scenario, in fact there are posts in that thread saying the same from other posters.
I think you may have seen less complaints about the idea if you made it clear the PRC would be available to any of the players PCs not just the PC who played through it.
So I had a player argue with me last night about this ruling and nothing he pointed to me on the boards from the developers changed my opinion on the rule I made so I am bringing the specifics out to here to see the difference in opinions and maybe a confirmation of my ruling or a change of my opinion.
So lets start of with the relevant rules of stealth because that I were my ruling is coming from..
Core pg 106 wrote:
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
So you can come out of cover an still be in stealth as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. You can also attack after coming out of cover but that will end you stealth after your attack.
Got it, understand it. The problem I had was that I had a player that wanted to move full movement from starting in stealth (so -5 to roll) attack someone at a point in that movement where he would not been able to get back into cover even if he did not attack.
I ruled since he moved beyond the point of being able to get back into cover he was no longer legally in stealth therefore he could not get an attack unobserved. He stated that being able to get back into cover was not important that he was still in stealth since he started the turn in stealth. Basically he could walk into a room from starting in stealth and not be seen until the end of his movement if he was not behind cover at that point.
I insisted that to be able to attack while in stealth he must first be at least able to finish the first condition of stealth even if he was not going to, which states you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Since he could never complete that condition because he would never be able to get back into concealment, he was not legally in stealth.
What do you all think?
I would love some logical opinions or links to posts by developers.
So I was able to figure out that my order was shipped though I never got a shipping email. According to my Order History page there is still a bunch of stuff pending from order 2775046. Has it been shipped or are they pending?
Pathfinder #9 (paizo.com Exclusive)
Also I did some research and it looks like I should have been getting Promo cards with my past shipments of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. If Blessing of Zarongel is in the current shipment this will be the first I have gotten. Should I have gotten others in past shipments?
Thomas Graham wrote:
I find it ironic that I get grief for the spell but no one bats an eye that my Death (Pharasma) domain has an 'evil spell' but it's perfectly okay to make do with the 'original' version. (Which has a spell no true Follower of Pharasma would ever use)
Plenty of people "bat an eye" about Pharasma and the Death Domain, that one of the reasons this blog was made. (And is PFS Legal)