Dust Raven's page

I finally got my copy and have been reading through it and came across this. I'm a bit confused by it. It would seem movement from bull rush (and reposition) would provoke.

Comparing the rules between Starfinder and Pathfinder, both generally state the only way to avoid an AoO by moving is a 5ft step/guarded setp or withdraw. The main difference is in the rules for combat maneuvers and other forced movement. In pathfinder they specifically state the movement caused doesn't provoke and in Starfinder there is no stated exclusion. At least not in the descriptions of the combat maneuvers.

I'm almost ready to accept forced movement generally provokes like any other movement if only because of the increased difficulty of successfully performing combat maneuvers.

So I was just going over the various benefits with a potential new GM at my store and was explaining that when she earns her first GM star, she gets a bonus on her free rerolls she uses as a player (from a Character Folio). When going over these benefits in the guide, I couldn't find anything that says you get a bonus to the roll anymore, but rather you receive a number of additional rerolls.

Now, the http://paizo.com/organizedplay/perks page still says you get the bonus to the rolls, but you now also get additional rolls?

Eldritch Heritage is an option, and would only be an investment of 2 feats, as to Familiar Bond's 3. Even so that's still 2-3 feats I'd rather spend on other things (like metamagic and toughness). Even with the prestige costs I'm starting to re-think how much I want a talking cat.

The goal is ultimately to gain a familiar, preferably without starting the character over. Starting over is an option as all she's played are evergreen scenarios (with one exception), I would just prefer not to.

The Familiar Bond line might work, it would just end up taking a little bit longer, and I could always just retain her 1st level feat to Iron Will so I can pick it up the familiar at 3.

I've cross-posted this to my area's own message boards but I figured I'd post here as well to get as much response as I could. My gut says 10 days/prestige for the Bloodline Arcana and Class Skill, but as everything else being modified is at a penalty I figure that's what is being traded out for the additions. The Bloodline Power won't be changing so no cost for that. On a technicality I suppose i could just name Know (planes) as my class skill, which is the class skill gained from the other bloodline and not get charged for that, but I feel that's cheating.

I have a 2nd level sorcerer with the elemental bloodline and I would like to retrain into the crossblooded archetype to add the arcane bloodline (because familiars are cool) but I'm not sure how much prestige it will cost. I'm not planning on changing any choices I've made so far (i.e. keeping the elemental ray for now, picking up familiar later) but I'm not sure what all counts as a class feature for this retrain. We're adding a bloodline, and that bloodline adds a new bloodline arcana and class skill, and then there is a list of drawbacks which I'm not sure if they count as separate features or not (which would suck if I had to pay additional prestige for some penalties).

I'm hoping this retrain will only cost me 5 prestige for the bloodline, but I'm suspecting it would be 10 for the change in arcana and class skill.

Is there anyone who has done this or a similar retrain before or maybe just someone who can double check my math?

It good to finally see these changes on the website. Strangely I still see my two Sczarni characters still have their original faction symbol and I have to manually adjust them to the Exchange. Or they can just keep this shiny gold key no one else has. It's not like they stole it or anything. You can't prove anything.

I'm really liking this class. I've only had a single opportunity to play during a low level PFS game, but I found the kineticist to be fun, though frustrating to play.

A few things off the top of my head:

I love the burn mechanic. I'm sure it can be streamlined a bit, but the idea of it works. It's kind of like a reverse resource pool, one you fill up rather than empty throughout the day. My only complaint is you fill up burn using instantaneous effects at the cost of a persistent cost. The HP loss should be recoverable throughout the day (maybe 1 point per level per hour) though the burn should stay and keep its limit per day. Feel the burn could then have a limit that it only functions while suffering from non-lethal damage from burn but still uses the full burn from the day to determine its bonus.

Each element should be scaled more like cross between sorcerer bloodlines and oracle mysteries. You should receive a limited of but essential and theme defining abilities which scale with level automatically, and then have a list of additional tricks/talents to select from every few levels which also scale with level. For example, if a telekineticist selects the Self Telekinesis talent, it should automatically provide an increase ability at a higher level.

There should be some means of increasing the accuracy of the non touch attack blasts. I know there has been tons of math done up here on the subject, but just ballparking it but the total bonus to hit seems about the same as a bard using inspire courage, except the bard gets inspire courage at level one, provides those bonuses to his entire group and can also use magic weapons to further increase his own accuracy. There should at least be some kind of magic item a kineticist can use to increase his accuracy, even if it only applies to his non touch targeting blasts.

I agree this is a little confusing. I'm finding the same issue with the divination school and the Forewarned ability. Forewarned doesn't require any sort of action to even use and is always on for a wizard. How does it work for an arcanist?

Gratz!

I just got caught up on my reporting for my last few sessions and figured because I'm getting close to my 4th star, I'd look and see just how close. I'll guess I'll just have to wait. I'm assuming nothing bad will happen as we continue to report, and maybe when it's working again I'll see four stars instead of three.

I'm also curious about PFS. I have some local players asking if I'll be running it for our PFS group.

I'm running it either way, of course :)

First off, Spaarky, I'll remind you, as I've reminded others, rules savvy does not equal infallible, and you being rules savvy does not equal you are the only rules savvy people in existence.

Secondly, I agree with you. It should cost an extra 2,000 gp for each end of a double weapon to add magic enchantments. But one of my players raised a question, and so I researched it. I had never heard of anyone buying a magic double cold iron weapon. Seems weird that it has never come up, but it hasn't. So I took a look at the rules instead of just assuming the things I've assumed since 3.5. Here's what I found:

The only place in the rules which treats the ends of a double weapon as two different weapons are the rules for adding magical enhancements/special abilities. The line which states so even calls out those items specifically (as well as XP costs, which is an indicator as to how not-looked-at this section of the rules really is).

The section which covered the additional cost specifically states the 2,000 gp is added to the cost of the weapon, not the enchantment.

Of course, reading that last part really could go either way, but that's my point. The rules don't really make it clear, and there is a case for it to go either way.

That's really the issue. I went looking to make sure my understanding of the rules was correct, and found something ambiguous. I would like it to not be ambiguous. I'd be really happy if it turned out the way I think is right is in fact the right way, if for no other reason that it would make what I've been told is at least three other people they are right too. But I'm not the only person who feels the issue it's as clear as all that. Lone Wolf Development (who produce Hero Lab) thinks you only add the 2,000k once. Granted, they are no greater authority that any of us, but it's evidence this needs to be looked at by someone other than a handful of players with nothing better to do on a Monday night.

Could use one for enchantment costs. Had a question about enchanting a double weeapon made of cold iron on both ends and if the 2000 extra has to be paid both times, or if the first payment covers both.

I've been searching for any official clarification but can't find it.

They way the rules are written, it would seem (to me at least) you only need to pay the 2000 gold once when enchanting both ends of a cold iron double weapon. The rules for adding magical enhancements indicate those costs are doubled (or rather, treated as separate weapons). The rules also mention you have to pay double the masterwork cost when buying a masterwork double weapon. Unfortunately, the additional 2000 gold is neither of these things, and it does not mention the need for doubling it if a double weapon.

So I'm not sure.

I suppose instead of just listing our characters, listing their levels would be important. Sure I have a few humans in my roster, but my kitsune and gnome are higher level because I play them more often.

It just occurred to me, if you need to spend a feat to get your fly bonus, get Skill Focus: Fly.

If we're counting our own characters, I have 2 humans and 1 each of gnome, half-elf, half-orc, kitsune, tengu and tiefling. I also have one level 1 character which was last played as a pregen cleric, but will likely be something else.

Out of those races anyone may pic, dwarves and elves have been the most rare, followed by gnomes. The most common by far are humans, followed by aasimars and tieflings. Oddly enough, I've seen about a half dozen tengu and less than a half dozen elves, dwarves and gnomes combined.

I would love to see fewer aasimars and tieflings.

Wow, I never noticed the weight difference. I wonder if the weight just forgets to include the full weight of all 10 torches and all 5 days of rations. If you only add the weight of 1 each of torches and ration you get 24 lbs.

The griffon mane item would take up the item slot associated with the type of item the griffon mane is made into. Cloaks would use up the shoulder slot, for example. In my opinion, clothing outfits would take up the chest slot. Check the FAQ and the Animal Archive book for what slots any given animal receives and how to add new ones.

Without double checking, I think your best bet is to make it into armor, as that would be a better use of of a feat for your animal companion.

I think I might even still inquire

but that's based on my personal experience

what can it hurt

Well, there is the question of avoiding sounding like I'm saying "Hey, lots of players have been complaining about you, are you mentally disabled?"

I figure if it's relevant, and he's comfortable discussing it, he'll volunteer the information.

whats interesting about this thread .. is the only thing were getting is that he's "Immature" which is a great way for people to Rubber stamp someone with a real Mental Disability

Dust I am Sending you a PM based on this

Thank you for the PM and your insight. To the best of my knowledge this player has no disability of any kind. Granted, I don't know much about him outside PFS. He's 19, lives with his parents, is looking for a job, and would rather be somewhere other than at home on the weekends. For his age, he is either a bit immature or maybe just inexperienced in social situations, but it would be pure speculation on my part as to the cause.

I may not refer to the tengu as a giant chicken, a chicken I tell you, a giant chicken!

I am not allowed to attack the darkness.

"Get off my lawn!" is not a verbal component of Hand of the Apprentice, even when playing Ezren.

I am not allowed to sell "oops" insurance (especially in Riddleport).

I must apply an oil of silence to my firearm before firing it indoors.

Thank you everyone for your advice.

I'd never dream of asking another customer of the store we play at to leave the store, but I'm extremely comfortable asking someone not to sit at my table (or not sitting at a table already seating a player I'm not comfortable playing with). I'm not sure yet if my problem player is there yet, but I can definitely see it coming.

I've got another event planned for this upcoming Saturday to run the 2nd part of a module (the one he's playing the pregen gunslinger). I'll have a quick chat with him before the game, and if necessary after the game. The following Sat it's our VC's turn to coordinate and I'll have a quick chat with him (or the VL) to keep him in the loop.

I understand that GMs with stars may now reply scenarios for credit as either a player or GM with some restrictions. What about a sanctioned module? Can those be replayed?

If he wants to turn every encounter into a fight, let him. Sooner than later it will result in either his character getting killed or banned from organized play for an evil action.

It might seem harsh, but he needs to learn a lesson. Right now, he's interpreting his method as play as one hundred percent valid because other players and game masters have been covering for his actions. Just step back and let the fireworks go off. It only takes one shredded character sheet to correct that kind of behaviour.

That is unless, as previously suggested, he's 12 years old. Then just have a talk with him.

While I can't speak for the tables I've not shared with him, for those I have his behavior is not being validated. Some of his other minor issues and outbursts have been overlooked as annoying but not disruptive, but the things he does which slows down or halts game play or otherwise disrupts the game have been called out by both players and the GM. The primary issue is that he's not receiving the message.

I might try this tactic as a last resort though, perhaps keeping him in low to mid-tier scenarios so if he gets everyone else killed the loss is not as severe, perhaps encouraging other player to play their b-list characters. I'd rather try to get through to him though.

The player is an adult, though barely so, and as Sitri explained is immature for his age. I have talked with the local VL about his, though briefly and without any resolution then to be made aware.

We've tried the RP of trying to hold him back when it's inappropriate, but lately it's been less RP and more OOC "no you can't smite/attack the widows and orphans!" (that's an exaggeration of course, though accurate.

I can try having a talk with him before the next game and see what comes of it.

Bit of background having talked with him a bit after the game yesterday: He's having some issues with home and is playing PFS to give him something to do that gets him out of the house all day one day of the week. I don't know and really don't care to know any further details. It may be he just needs to find a different hobby to occupy his time, but I'd rather see if I can find a way for him to make and keep PFS his hobby of choice.

My regular group has been experiencing some continuous, though inconsistent issues with a particular player. Now this player, in my own experience, is a great guy and generally fun to play with, and the issues people, even myself, have with it all seem exceeding minor to the point of being easy to ignore. But they are adding up, and I'm not sure what to do.

There really would be too much to list as examples, and as I said the vast majority is extremely minor, but the bottom line it is slowing down the game. Both in and out of combat he doesn't seem to have a full grasp of his character's role in the group, and doesn't seem to grasp the role of any of the other characters, and often the purpose of the mission as well. He seems to view his own character as one dimensional: a paladin that smites evil (and has absolutely nothing else to contribute so expresses a desire to smite evil/engage in combat even in social encounters). Not just occasionally, not just every encounter, but each and every chance he gets to express himself.

Today's example comes of playing the pregen gunslinger. Pretty much every time he was given a change to act, it was to shoot something, or state he wanted to shoot something, or otherwise threaten something with being shot. In one encounter in which all the PCs were given a sap and told to fight each other until only one was last standing, he argued in favor is using his extremely lethal pistols for the very reason of his greater chance hitting and greater damage... every turn. He was eventually told that using the pistol instead of the nonlethal sap would be reported as PVP, at which point he opted for the pistol whip deed, which we excepted as it couldn't accidentally kill anyone with a crit and it got the game moving again.

I really don't want to turn him away from the game, I just would like some advise on how to get him to back off a little. I think everyone would be okay if he wants to play a one trick pony provided he only involved himself in encounters where that trick is applicable, and kept quiet otherwise. I think everyone would be even happier if he expanded on what he felt his character was capable of. Even more, I don't want myself or anyone else to just snap one day and blow their top at him.

The one thing I've always had a problem with is what to do when a player asks questions about a creature with class levels. Obviously an ogre is an ogre, but an ogre with a few levels on fighter will be noticeably different, and also different from an ogre with levels in ranger in stead. Not to mention to unusual ogre with a higher than average Cha and a few levels in sorcerer.

As a GM I inform the player how many pieces of information they know about the creature, and treat each bold entry as a single piece of information (except for spell-like abilities if a creature has several, then I wing it). I also treat each paragraph from the text below the stat block as a piece of information.

Information I give to all successful knowledge checks in addition to the above is the creature's name, type, primary subtype (other subtypes can be learned based on the roll) and the descriptive text just below the creature's name in the bestiary.

If the creature has any templates, I'll include a descriptive bit to indicate such, but not identify them, otherwise treating templates as additional bits of info. For example I might describe a fiendish creature as possessing a faint scent of brimstone or an advanced creature as appearing unusually strong and capable.

The season 5 success conditions are clearly outlined in each scenario. They can be found in the conclusion section of each module. I believe that for earlier than season 5 scenarios the check boxes do not matter as they do not affect the overall season stuff.

I wasn't able to find this in #5-02 in regards to the ABCD boxes.

That, and not everybody in Cheliax is a cleric of or even worships Asmodeus. Even the Hellknights follow a group of deities which range from good to evil.

Can I ask why this mod was the Cheliax mod? Being that priests of Asmodeus unless given foreword to cast undetectable alignment are basically disqualified from being able to complete this mission?

Well, there is the possibility of a diplomacy check to allow someone of evil aura in, though difficult unless there's someone in the group specialized in it.

In all fairness though, anyone walking around with an evil aura should probably be extremely proactive in knowing where they are headed and carry around a potion/scroll of undetectable alignment with them everywhere. I know of one chaotically aligned Hellknight (via the faction boon) who refuses to stand before another Hellknight without having it cast.

I ran this on Saturday and loved it! The first fight with the "farmers" the PCs completely ignored Ilivan, then spent the entire fight running into combat, then running away when half a dozen drethces suddenly appeared, then running back in (after the paladin died when he was the only one that didn't run).

Once at Fort P, the PCs had a well role-played heated argument with Ilivan concerning rescuing the cavalrymen. Naturally the PCs won out. The encounter with the ragweed was fantastic, with only one PCs failing all the saves and going nuts while Ilivan sat curled up in a ball by his horse. It was a bit disturbing only a single PC opted to use nonlethal damage, but fortunately there was a cleric with Calm Emotions prepared.

With 2 empathy points after pulling Ilivan out of his catatonia (and sympathizing with him about this past), the group almost cheered when he charged off to take on the oncoming host of demons while the PCs rescued the cavalrymen.

Before the fight, someone said "wouldn't it suck if they started coup de gracing them all instead of fighting?" and I giggled. Then a wand of haste spoiled all my fun.

I'm looking forward to running this again in hopes of seeing how much diversity there is in the end. I'm extremely impressed at how many ways this could end with the PCs still "winning".

Easy answer, if the player could look up the DC in the rules there will never be an issue when stating what the DC is. This gets complicated when a scenario complicates things by providing an arbitrary DC which seems to include various circumstance modifiers (sometimes defined, sometimes not). As long as the character would be aware of the circumstances providing those modifiers, I think it's fair to call them out and give the total modified DC. As far as I'm concerned, unless the scenario states something providing a modifier is hidden from the PCs I'll assume they notice before the need to make a check.

I have no idea what to do with the ABCD section and will be ignoring it until there is further clarification. At first glance it appears it's for reporting is the primary and secondary missions were completed, but there are four boxes and whether or not the primary or secondary missions are completed can be tracked directly with prestige earned. At this point I'm assuming it's for marking which faction missions are completed, though there is no indication of which is which.

Yep, general DC for most uses of any particular Skill (or their base values) are included in the CRB, which players are not only encouraged to read, PFS expected them to have done so. If the DC is included in the Skill's description, feel free to tell them as you are only informing a player of a rule. Otherwise, the DC is much like an opponent's AC or other unknown value.

As far as getting your players to take 10, when asking them to make a skill check when they are allowed to take 10, ask instead if they are taking 10. Some will, some won't.

I've only seen a few scenarios which deal with the possibility of PC capture, and each of these specifies exactly what capture means. I've never seen one which results in losing gear as a result of being captured. In the one I've seen where capture is reported a death, if you pay the ransom you get the character and gear back.

In fact, the only scenario I can think of in which all your gear is taken if you lose the fight is First Steps I, and that can only happen to a 1st level character so death is not going to be the better option.

I'd say if you are going to be captured, and the only way out is death, then just get captured. The worst that will happen will be cheaper to remedy than death.

I'm still a little uncertain how to report the A B C D thing for season 5, let alone the older seasons.

I'd assume its when the chronicle is applied.

Nice!

Send Logan my thanks!

Entangle says that if you make your save, but are still in the area at the end of the caster's turn, you have to make another save.

What if you failed the save and are still in the area?

It might sound silly, but in the case of an area with thorns, you take damage on a failed save. This would indicate that you either make a save every round to avoid damage, or you have the option of not bothering to escape to avoid damage.

If you do have to make your save each round (regardless of if you are already entangled), does making that save just avoid the damage, or will it break the entangle effect and set you free?

The cleric's Fire Domain grants the spell-like ability: Fire Bolt. Normally, SLAs do not have any components, so I would think this would not require a free hand to use. However, the flavor text indicates the fire is unleashed from an "outstretched hand". Personally, I'd think the flavor text is just flavor and doesn't actually supersede the normal rules for casting, but I'm seeing plenty of room for this to go either way. So which is it?

So far, I'm having my cleric use the ability with a lit torch in hand, saying that's the hand the fire comes from (appearing as if he's flicking it from the torch).

Sorry to resurrect the thread, but I'm presently building a character who might make use of these feat, but I can't find anything in the FAQ about despite the question being marked as answered.

Could anyone tell me where the answer is?

Gratz, Jason!

Dust Raven.

I think that RAW is a bit to strict in this. If you read it "strictly" the the letter as written or RAW... then yes you are correct. But I do not think that this was as intended nor does it truly say anything about awareness or blindness or anything like it. So using this as RAW is next to impossible, so we as GM's need to do a rule as intended ruling.

I think that both flanking members HAVE to be aware of each other in order to do so. In my example above.. it is showing flanking. But the only person that should get the bonus is still the invisible person, at least until the invisible person actually "does" his attack which in that case he is no longer invisible.

As a GM I would do it as intended and have. I do go by the rules as strictly written when the intention comes through as such. Which is 99% of them... then there is a rule like you are pointing out that needs the clarification that this thread is pointing out and debating. Where a GM needs to adjudicate the ruling on this. I think that the only fair way is to do it from the view point that the allies need to be aware of each other to get the flanking bonus.

So the only flanking bonus that would be applied would be the invisible person or at least "until" the invisible person attacks.

Okay, but until you receive that clarification, you would still have to run the game using the rules as written, yes? There's no way anyone can divine if the intent was anything other than what the RAW states unless the authors say something. They haven't. Ever. Even when asked. I have to assume, based on this question coming up dozens of times over the past three years that RAW = RAI in this case.

I could understand if there were some void or ambiguity, but I can't find it. Maybe it doesn't make sense. Maybe it doesn't need to.

An eidolon (like an ogre) has a normal intelligence, not that of an animal. Anyone with an animal companion would need to train their animal to follow them into places they would not normally go (such as through a door they can barely squeeze through) or attempt to coerce them, with either of those options requiring a Handle Animal check.

As far as looking for a reason to tone down the use of strange animals, I'm not looking for one, this one exists. Just because only a tiny fraction of PFS GMs (and GMs in general) actually enforce the rules for handling animals doesn't mean it's okay for the rest to ignore them.

The handle animal rules apply to all characters. The only thing special about those with animal companions is the companion is safely assumed to be friendly/helpful to its owner and its owner can usually make his Handle Animal checks in less time. And if the owner of an animal companion needs to make those checks, so does the guy who decided to buy a trained animal at the market. And in both cases, the animal remains an animal.

What matters is if the people threatening are aware of the invisble person or not.

I'm reasonably certain this doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters for flanking is if both allies threaten a creature from opposite sides.

Before and since starting this thread I've read and re-read the rules over and over looking for anything that further defines flanking, defines flanking differently or provides any exceptions to this definition of flanking, and have not found any. I started the thread thinking I may have missed or misunderstood something, but it's looking as if I have not.

Oh, I can see that. I was just having trouble with the idea that a bison can't "squeeze" through a door when an ogre can.

I can just see the shenanigans of taking a bison into a shop filled with fragile items, and some annoying NPC cast "scare" on it.....

An ogre can choose to squeeze, an animal would need convincing or special training (in my opinion). A normal animal with a normal animal intelligence isn't going to necessarily know how to squeeze or want to.

The main issue for this is which perception determines flanking. The person attacking or being attacked. The person attacking an opponent doesn't know the other person flanking is there unless the have the ability to see invisible. Thus how do they know they are flanking? This needs to be FAQ'd since nothing in the rules for flanking address this "specific" issue.

The rules don't require a creature to be aware of his enemies to be flanked by them. All that is required is his enemies threaten his square and be on opposite sides of him. There isn't anything in the rules which places this in a gray area or leaves it open to interpretation.

In the specific case of my kitsune sorcerer, the only time he would not help flank is when he's casting a spell with a casting time of 1 round (such as summon monster, which he's fond of) or when he's standing in the wrong square. Or during those times he's in human form and has forgotten to draw his dagger. Or pretty much any circumstance in which you can't flank, visible or not. Visibility has nothing to do with it.