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

Lune's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,228 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 5 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

And since the Waraxe (not warhammer, not sure where that came in) is NOT a two handed weapon of that size and IS a one handed weapon of that size they CAN use them one handed when they have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to do so.


I am working off the most recent rules. They are here and say:

Quote:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?

No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.


Chess Pwn, that isn't right. Read the FAQ. It specifically states that they cannot wield weapons too big for their size.

A Dwarven Waraxe is listed as a one handed weapon.

The FAQ wrote:

Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed." None of the titan mauler's abilities say the character can break the "steps" part of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule, so the character still has to follow that rule.


Exotic Weapon proficiency in Dwarven Waraxe makes it a one handed weapon. Titan Mauler's Massive Weapons ability allows you to wield two handed weapons "meant for creatures one size category larger". A Large sized Dwarven Waraxe is a two handed weapon meant for creatures one size larger than the dwarf. Having Massive Weapons and taking Exotic Weapon proficiency in Dwarven Waraxe allows the wielder to use them one handed.

Wielding the weapon does not change it's handedness. He could not do this with a Greatsword because of this ruling as the FAQ says. And even when doing so he still takes a -4 penalty for it being inappropriately sized (that decreases to -3 at 6th).

My advice is get to 6th level Titan Mauler/5th level Two Weapon Warrior ASAP. This will decrease the penalties to only -1. I also suggest taking Reckless Abandon Rage Power and you will very quickly be in the positives. Forget bumping your armor up, it is a lost cause. Get some mithril medium armor and be done with it. Instead push your Con and Str as high as you can as often as you can. Take rage powers that help mitigate damage.


I had heard that Mark Seifter was working on a polymorph FAQ that would answer these kinds of questions. Lets try to keep he thread alive for a FAQ request (hit FAQ, please). In the meantime I will try to summon Mark.

Lets see... I have seen this done before. *Clears throat*
Mark Seifter, Mark Seifter, Mark Seifter!


@DM Livgin: Well I will admit that either I am reading too little into the rules or others are reading too much. But, I can assure you that I am not reading too much into them. See this thread for some history.

Others believe that the gloves wouldn't work because they do not give a constant bonus, only a constant effect. Likewise for the Bracers of Armor due to a clause in the polymorph rules quotes above stating armor bonuses do not carry over.

Otherwise RAW I think I mostly agree with you except for things like the Quick Runner's Shirt as it doesn't seem to take any action to activate or, in fact have any activation at all. The effect seems as constant as it could be.


For example do the the following items work when polymorphed?
Bracers of Armor
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier (all of it's abilities?)
Deliquesant Gloves
Ioun Stones (...and when socketed into a wayfinder?)
Lens of Detection
Cloak of Resistance
Vambraces of Defense (all of the abilities?)
Quick Runner's Shirt?

Why or why not for each?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm having trouble with this line from polymorph sub school:

Quote:
Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function). Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form.

This line from magic items:

Quote:
To use a magic item, it must be activated, although sometimes activation simply means putting a ring on your finger. Some items, once donned, function constantly.

And this line under use activated item:

Quote:

Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. a character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated.

Which items can be used while polymorphed?


I have a Kitsune with Fox Shape which (aside from things that have nothing to do with movement speed) otherwise functions like Beast Shape 2. That spell states that you gain other movement modes but nothing about base land movement speed. Transmutation states under polymorph (the sub school to which beast shape spells belong), "Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume."

So you get the movement speed of a Fox, right?


I have a Kitsune with Fox Shape which (aside from things that have nothing to do with movement speed) otherwise functions like Beast Shape 2. That spell states that you gain other movement modes but nothing about base land movement speed. Transmutation states under polymorph (the sub school to which beast shape spells belong), "Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume."

So you get the movement speed of a Fox, right?


No new question. Just the same ones 0gre had.


Oh,no. I understood perfectly. It is still prioritizing spacing in the book over correct, clear and accurate rules.

I understand the complications involved due to them frequently referencing page numbers rather than section (another mistake). I do not think that a proper solution to this problem is to only make errata if it fits in the same space.


So... new thread time?


Really? They are more concerned with spacing than making sure correct, clear and accurate rules get published? Wow, talk about having messed up priorities. I'm not doubting you, btw, just surprised if that is true.


So why can't I FAQ this? I didn't see it answered in the FAQ...


Hm... retraining is an option.


Avenger Swashbuckler does indeed look better than Fighter for a 1 level dip. However, it still leaves the problem of not getting Slashing Grace online until 5th. I guess it leaves the option of going 1 level Avenger Swashbuckler and 1 level of fighter then rest Bard. That is probably better than 2 levels of Fighter.


SOB!

edit: You know... d20fpsrd needs to get their s*+* together. I have gotten burned by that several times. Aasimar FCB is correct here, but not here.


My son is building a new character for PFS. He just got a race boon for Aasimar and wants to use it for this due to the favored class bonus. He doesn't think he would enjoy a full support Bard but liked the look of the Arcane Duelist.

Basically he wants to combine some ideas.

1. He likes the idea of being able to use Weaponwand on a Whip to be able to heal at 15ft.
2. Whips can be used with Slashing Grace and Weapon Finesse for a high Dex Bard build.
3. Aasimar favored class bonus for Bard is strong and he wants to use it.
4. With Arcane Strike (free with Arcane Duelist), accelerated Bardic Performance and Bladethirst he should be able to keep up fairly well with full martials. However, I'm not sure how you keep them all up at the same time. Lingering Performance would help with this but only after 7th level Bard where it becomes a Move Action to start a performance and that would limit him to only a Standard Action to attack with.

The biggest issue I am looking to remedy is that the build is feat intensive early and getting any of these feats as bonus feats will be helpful. Weapon Focus is a requirement for Whip Master to make the Whip not suck. The problem is that Bards do not have +1 BAB at first level so that puts off Weapon Focus to 3rd level which puts off Whip Mastery until 5th and Slashing Grace until 7th. Waiting until 7th level to be able to effectively deal damage with a Whip is far too long to wait.

I have some possible solutions to this dilemma but none of them are perfect.

1. Take a level of Kensai Magus 1st, then go the rest Bard. This brings with it some benefits. First, you get Weapon Focus for free at 1st level and could take Weapon Finesse as your bonus feat. You also get Exotic Weapon Proficiency at 1st level which you could use for Scorpion Whip and then you no longer really need Whip Mastery. That leaves you primed for Slashing Grace at 3rd level. Kensai could also pick up some more spells added to a spell list for wand usage and doubling up on 1st level spells. They also get Cantrips and Bards do not.

That seems like an acceptable solution. The downfalls are that it loses the ability to use Weaponwand effectively to cure wounds at a range as you no longer have the choice to deal non-lethal damage. You still could at a penalty to hit but it doesn't do it as well as the Whip.

2. Take a level of Fighter 1st, then go the rest Bard. This brings with it some benefits as well. It allows for the taking of Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse at first level. You could also take Slashing Grace at third but that precludes dealing damage to armored foes so you would probably rather take Whip Mastery instead. That puts off Slashing Grace until 5th which will leave you dealing kinda sucky damage until then. The easy solution is to go Fighter/Bard/Fighter and get both Slashing Grace and Whip Mastery at 3rd level but then that delays all the Bard stuff even further.

This option leaves the ability to use Weaponwand to heal intact. It also gives all armor proficiencies. Mithril Breastplate has a 15% arcane spell failure which is fairly acceptable and eventually (albeit at the end of the character's PFS career) arcane spell failure wouldn't affect him in medium armor. Arcane Armor training could help in the meantime but is another feat tax. Retraining would help at 12th level but is somewhat expensive. He could also still get Improved Whip Master but that is another feat and may have to wait until after Lingering Performance which would be the front-runner for the 5th level feat slot thus putting it off until 7th. 4 levels of Bard with Aasimar favored class bonus going into Inspire Courage will bring him back up to speed with a full Bard and will put him ahead from there out. He will be ahead of the curve with BAB, of course.

I can't think of other options that would help for this build/concept. It would be perfect if there was a way for an Aasimar Arcane Duelist to get Weapon Focus as a bonus feat from something at first level. Alas, I can not think of any way for that to happen. There are also no ways for that race/class combo to pick up bonus feats. That basically leaves multi-classing to pick up bonus feats as the only option that I can think of. Unless there are some obscure Traits that might help here that I am unaware of?


I am fine with either a lock or move. At this point the thread has went way behind what I intended. Everyone seems to be (often harshly) judging anything they can find wrongdoing in. I am forgiving of the whole thing and as stated in my first sentence of this thread am not looking for retribution in any way. I would honestly rather the thread die if that continues.

FLite: I had him read a lot of stuff in preparation. I have been GMing for decades but I might be able to pick something up from that thread too.

Thanx again to everyone who has been helpful.


Calenor wrote:

Just to be curious, knowing that you play high with a low group, why did you choose the frontal assault, and did't sneak into the Fortress, as ordered by VC?

This would have made these encounters a lot easier.

Well, it wasn't as if we had the results of both options available to us when the decision was made to abandon the stealth route. Also, we did start out with that intention but another PC (no my son or I) made the choice that they could not tolerate how the slaves were being treated. It was an in character decision (I believe they were Liberty's Edge too) and we weren't about to not backup our team.

My son's character was posing as a "bodyguard" to the "slave trader" another character. That other character made his move and the cover was blown. My son's character also had his horse being a cavalier. Once the cover was blown it went downhill from there. We couldn't really approach the stronghold without the gnoll we had just killed in tow without our cover being blown. In fact, the archer on the tower opened fire upon our approach. At that point it is better to rush in than be a pincushion as the only one of our characters with a strong ranged option was the Arcanist and most of his spells were close range.

Also, my character was the only one among us that was stealthy in the least. And with most of the party lacking darkvision and the gnolls having it the decision was made that a night time approach would favor the gnolls as well.

William: That is fair. No hard feelings here. I seemed to get the impression that you would prefer flexability being allowed in these circumstances. I had thought that a more liberal reading along with the way the rule used to work would have swayed you towards allowing for the "fringe" case under the current rules.

Regarding the CDG and nonlethal attacks:
I have had a recent talk with my son on this topic. It seems that I was mistaken about where the CDG was placed. It wasn't upon his own character, it was upon his mount. I remembered incorrectly, my apologies for the confusion it may have caused.

Spoiler:

However, after having read the motivations of what the gnolls goals were supposed to have been I can tell you that they were definitely not played that way. They had the definite advantage throughout that entire fight and it was so obvious even their low intelligence is no excuse for not knowing it. That is worse than the CDG even if it were to have been on my son's character.

That would have turned the game around entirely. My character would have still had a great chance at breaking free with her abilities. It would have allowed the rest of the game to play out as it was intended.

I am actually thinking more now knowing the things that were obviously missed if the GM was purposely being lethal for some reason. I doubt it is the case and I'm probably just being paranoid. I do not recall having any negative interaction with him. It just seems like he took things out of the way they were intended and made things purposefully lethal when they were not meant to be. Like... pretty extremely, honestly. I still am not upset at him, but if they were meant to be as non-lethal as others have pointed out when overpowering the party to the point that they did... well, it is making me think that it may not have been as accidental as I originally thought. It seems like it is too hard to miss ALL of those mistakes.

Especially FLite's last spoiler. Is that true? Is it actually written in the scenario? Why on earth wasn't that followed at least? 2 were captured, 2 (and the horse) were killed. I was made to feel like they were doing a favor by the one guy using his boon and everyone chipping in for raise deads for the two dead. There were no deals made for us. We were worse off than the worst case scenario.

DM's side of the story:
I'm sorry, I don't think that will happen. I'm not sure how often he reads the boards. Even if he did recognize the story I think at this point it would be pretty embarrassing for him to post here, don't you? I honestly don't see what good would come of that for anyone involved. Him, me, the other players or the community as a whole.

Look, I didn't come here to have people judge the GM and any mistakes he made. I didn't come to have people judge my actions or that of my son. I simply came seeking a solution and it has been found. I thank everyone who contributed to helping me on my way to that.

No, I don't think the GM posting would be wise. I also don't know any of the other players that were present besides my son. While I tend to try to keep him out of the drama spotlight, he is quickly becoming an adult so I will allow him to chime in. After all he also has a stake in this.

Also, I support the thread move and spoiler tag if it is appropriate to do so.


Mulgar, no offense but it really seems like you didn't read the whole thread. Nonetheless, thank you for your sentiment. I assure you, we have not been soured on PFS from a single game. :)


andreww wrote:
Actually Lune doesn't seem to be making that distinction.

You are wrong. Re-read my initial post. I gave the levels in that post.

And while you think that the "fringe" statement is clearly supposed to apply only to tier 0-3 there are plenty of other people in this thread that have a different opinion and have shared it. I do not really care to argue the point. I didn't even bring it up.

Mulgar, Mark, et al: Just so you understand my son and I didn't actually know that we were playing in subtier 6-7 until it was brought up in the middle of the grim encounter that this thread is about. The DM didn't tell the table what tier we were playing in much less give us a choice. So while you are likely correct that the Bard's player was making an informed decision that he knew would affect our subtier, we did not know this. We didn't know we were playing in the subtier so we didn't know to adjust what characters we were playing to bump us down to the lower subtier.

Now sure, it is partially our fault for not being well enough informed about how the subtier calculations work. But saying "IF THE PLAYER CHOOSES TO PLAY" is not really accurate to this situation. Understand that those creatures didn't have a CR hovering above their heads. We didn't know either in character or out of character what we were up against until it was too late. And no, running away wasn't an option. They had us on movement speed, numbers, etc. Outmanned and outgunned and all that jazz.

Mark, you are incorrect on your CR calculations, bud. That is what the encounter CR is before the addition of the extra gnoll and the gnoll boss with the greataxe. Recalculate it and you will see. Regardless I am not only referring to just this 3-7 scenario. There are other scenarios in that tier range that have CR9+ bosses.

Further analysis of the mistakes are not really needed. They have already been identified. No one (at least not myself or my son) is trying to place blame or point fingers so allocating the blame for the identified mistakes isn't needed either. As I said from the beginning, I'm sure there were miscommunications aplenty and the blame finger can go in several directions. Yes, even at me. I understand that ignorance is a poor excuse but that doesn't excuse that it happened and it shouldn't have.


Actually, the question (which has been posed several times) is whether or not you believe that level 4s (or even 3) are intended to contend with CR9 bosses.

I understand basic arithmetic as I believe everyone here does. We know how rounding works. But as plaidwandering said, "Anyone 4.6-5 is in the same boat and likely wiped out without any chance at all." Or as William Boyle put it, "I can see the DCs and some full strength monster SAs (which are often toned down in 1-2) etc. in a 4-5 being a bit much for PCS with 6 XPs so I would not lose any sleep if there was some flexibility."

I can understand and respect your opinion whatever it is. I do, honestly, find it hard to believe that you think actually think that level 4s are intended to contend with CR9 bosses. I think it is more likely you are repeating your interpretation of the way the rules read for the sake of argument rather than actually believing the words you are saying. But if you tell me you believe that then I will let the point drop and put you on that side of the disagreement.

It is a minor point in the overall discussion and I am not trying to alienate someone who helped me and supports our situation being resolved in a very amiable way.


BNF: Again, I'm not upset at the DM or anyone. Slack is given in ample amounts.

This is altogether different than believing it was handled correctly.

Mark: But 4.6 (such was the case here) doesn't get that choice? I think you may have avoided plaidwandering's question.


@Yuri: Heh... "Lube". ;)
Yeah, with those changes in effect it would have been a lot easier. However, that gnoll barbarian with the axe was grim. Him, by himself, was difficult for us to deal with. It is hard to believe that it is intentional that at 4th level we are expected to contend with such a foe with all of his goons and pets present.

@Mark: So you believe it is intentional for 3rd level characters to face CR9+ bosses?

Also, the four-character adjust was not the only mistake. Even if you are correct about the intention of the "fringe" situation (which I still question for the same reasons William did) we also fought 3 encounters combined into one. That was not intended as part of the scenario.


Mark, while I understand what you are saying I disagree.

You believe that this is taken out of context: "In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier." You believe that this sentence only applies when it is a season 0-3 scenario. I do not. I understand that it is in the same paragraph as it is talking about 0-3 scenarios but I still believe that it is meant to apply to all.

If that is true then it would lead to situations where level 4 (or even 3!) characters are designed to fight against CR9+ bosses. I think that the last sentence of that is meant to apply to all seasons of scenarios.

Again, I understand what you are saying but I do not take that sentence as meaning to be applied to only seasons 0-3 otherwise you end up with the situation that we ran into.

Either way, even if you are correct on that point and I am wrong (which I admit is subject to interpretation as others have already posted in this thread with that interpretation) the four-character adjustment wasn't the only mistake here. See my above post. We fought 3 encounters in one which was not intended in the scenario as well.


@Yuri:

Spoiler:
I think we didn't get as far as where the Genie was. The boss was one that we had fought. It is possible it didn't have the invis potion as there was some kind of ground effect thing going on (obscuring mist) and he could have went around a building. Basically, his disappearance could have been lacking proper description.

But from your description we faced B1, B2 and the Pack Leader together? So this was not intended?

So from the sounds of it, there were three mistakes that happened:

1. There was no four-character adjustment.

2. We were not given the option to play down a tier when we had no one in the tier that we fought.

3. The GM combined 3 encounters (compounding mistakes 1 and 2; with too many and too high tier) into one which was not part of the scenario.

Is that more or less correct?


@FLite: Well, it wasn't run correctly. We should have been given the opportunity to choose a lower tier as stated by Mark and William. The rule states:
"A party of five to seven characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play the higher tier with the four-character adjustment."
and
"In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier."

Neither of those were followed. There was no four-character adjustment and no choice in playing down a tier.

I think with just the four-character adjustment it still would have been far too difficult. Fighting a CR 10 as level 4 characters is not good for their health. And even so it sounds like they are supposed to be two separate encounters?... that could have made a difference.

FLite wrote:
...there are a lot of scenarios where the upper tier boss has abilities that the lower tier PCs can't cope with.

But no one in our party was upper teir. None of us were and none of us could cope with the boss's abilities.


@Yuri: Thank you, that is very helpful.

Spoiler:
That seems to be missing some things.

So encounters b1 and b2... are they meant to be fought together?

The gnoll lieutenants are like the ones listed here? That seems like exactly what they were.

What about the gnoll boss? What is he? Is he the gnoll warden on that same page? I think he was. He had favored enemy humans. He had a potion of invisibility that he used.

If that is true then that is a CR10!! Surely no one thinks that 4th level characters should be facing CR10 with his CR6 lietenants, and CR4 large sized hyeanas. Do they?

That thing auto hits my level 4 character on any roll except a 1. Even against our tank (my son's level 4 character) he hits on a 8. The one in this scenario was using a battle axe rather than a scimitar. I'm not sure if this was a change the GM made or was printed in the scenario. That gnoll boss can kill him in 2 attacks or one crit. That IS what happened by the way, my son's character was crit and dropped to negative in that one hit. He was then CDG by one of the other gnolls.

If it was down a teir what would we have been fighting instead?


Actually, now I am a bit concerned that this was more than a mistake about both fighting out of subtier and without table size consideration. Would anyone mind greatly checking this scenario and answering a couple of questions for me?

Spoiler:
As I recall we had a single encounter on the chain gang that didn't go too poorly. After that road across the desert and made it to the gnoll's stronghold where we were supposed to rescue the person we were sent to save. This is the encounter that went poorly.

Mark said that there would have been a total of 4 creatures? Is that including the final encounter?

How did we end up fighting 6-7 bad guys? As I said, we fought a gnoll archer atop a parapet, 2 gnoll grunty guys, one gnoll leader and 2-3 giant (large sized) hyeana things.

Were these not included in that scenario? Could anyone tell me the CR of the things that we fought at the subtier we fought at?


Mark: ... I'm not sure what happened then.

Spoiler:
As I recall there were at minimum 3 gnolls one of which was an archer atop a parapet near the gate. There was also a boss gnoll. There were 2, maybe 3 of the giant hyeana things. Was this two encounters combined into one, perhaps?


Tonya, I think you may be mistaken on some of the details.

First of all, I did not have ready access to my VL or VC when I was at Gencon. It was not an option for me to take the issue to them. I have to abide by the rulings made at the table. While I am happy that the GM took the issue to you I do not believe it was handled correctly at the table or after the game.

The group that I am part of meets every two weeks so I knew I would be seeing my VL the next time we played so I was going to bring it to her there. I spoke to someone who knew her better and they told me she wouldn't be able to do anything anyway so I didn't bother. I don't know my VC at all but was going to bring it to him next weekend which would be the first and only time I would have seen him outside of a brief meeting at Gencon. Luckily he has approached me on his own after seeing this post.

The remedy that you are referring to still cost the lives of two characters. The costs at the table were not reduced at all. As I stated my son still had to pay for the full cost of being raised in both all of his gold, all of my gold and some of other player's gold as well. He also paid the full cost for two Restorations. His animal companion also died but that is mostly a non-issue.

The end results are the same though, Tonya. It was a near TPK due in large part to a mistake made by the GM. Everyone involved acknowledges this. I'm not upset at the GM. I am not upset at you. I just do not think that it is fair to stand by a near TPK due to that mistake. From the people I have spoke with (both on and off this message board) it seems like they agree. And while we were told at Gencon that there was likely nothing we could do about it, I was told afterwords that there is.

I have been playing Pathfinder from it's inception. I played D&D and several other RPGs for years before that. I have had characters die. So has my son. We do not tend to take it personally. But when it was due to an error (even an honest one) that could have been retconned after it was pointed out ... well, this time it stuck with us. The threat of death is one thing. The inevitability of death due to facing too hard of a threat is something else entirely.

That being said, I don't know if I am sorry that I brought it to the boards. Actually, in this circumstance it looks like "Bringing it up to the court of public opinion" has helped. I did not know the correct way to seek resolution and now I do. My VC saw my post and is looking to help. I would think, if anything, this shows that the boards are another tool in the box to help the community. The system works. This is good. I didn't come here to air an issue, get the community fired up and to seek vengeance. Please read the first paragraph of my first post. I came to find how to seek possible resolution for something we felt wronged on.

Perhaps it might be better to discuss this further in private messages? I don't want this discussion to bring down the boards especially after prior to your post I thought things were going very well. I'm sure there were misunderstandings involved on all sides. As it looks like this is moving the right way maybe even locking the thread would be helpful?


Mark, William: I don't think it would be as big of an issue for a 1-5 but when it is a 3-7 there is a fair amount more difference between low subtier and high subtier. Level 4 melees have no business contending with multiple CR7 bad guys. The fight in question had I think... 7 bad guys?

So we were outmanned, outgunned and the bad guys started with a huge advantage being within their base.

Spoiler:
My son's character and I road forward at breakneck speed on his mount. He jumped from his mount to the parapet with the archer and tried to take him out. If he was successful in getting there it probably would have worked but it would have been much better to have him with his party as his character is built around assisting others in combat. As luck would have it he failed a climb check bad enough to fall ... on the other side of the gate. ...with all the bad guys.
To his credit he managed to survive until we could get inside. If it hadn't have been for my character being a Breaker/Liberator Barbarian and broken down their door with my adamantine greatsword it would have went MUCH worse. Unfortunately he was so low once we got to the other side that he wasn't going to be much help in the fight. The bard couldn't get to him to heal and couldn't have dropped a large enough cure on him to have made a big difference anyway.
Even without that unfortunate event happening I can't see any way we could have beat the encounter. The gnoll leader in that encounter was rediculously strong for our APL. If it wasn't for a couple lucky crits on my part and the TWF's part it would have went even worse. I know this is only anecdotal evidence to any reader here but let me tell you once we were involved in that encounter it was easy to tell that an error had been made. It was hopeless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FLite: Yeah, we weren't given the choice. The GM just did the math to find the average and made the decision. I would have chose to play down a teir as our front line (my character and my son's character) were the lowest levels. If it was the other way around having the front line be higher level I may have decided differently.

And just so everyone knows we are not upset at the GM, the Event Organizers or anyone in particular. We recognize it as an honest mistake. The only thing we are a bit upset about is that it didn't seem like after the mistake was caught that it was handled well from there. But mostly looking for resolution than any kind of justice.

*UPDATE*
My VC contacted me on his own. It seems that he saw this thread and recognized me from the description (having just met him at Gencon and going to another Con he is running next weekend). He looked up my posting name, saw my alias with my real name and has told me he will correct it.

Problem solved. Thank you all for your input. My son doesn't know yet as he is still sleeping but I'm sure he will be happy.

Thanx, PFS community!


...actually, now that I'm thinking about it that reasoning doesn't make an awful lot of sense. Why would it matter if it was brought up after the fact? Is it because there would be some doubt cast upon the situation? Why? All of this information is recorded on sheets and is reported on the paizo site. It could easily be looked into if someone so desired. The GM's name can be found, the other players can be found, the levels of their characters can be verified. Heck, I just looked it up on the Paizo site myself and can see the GM's board name. (I'm not going to post it here as there is no point to it now.)

And, honestly, what reason would anyone have for mistruths in this scenario? It would bring no gains to someone who hadn't lost anything.

edit: oop, this came a bit late. This was meant to be in reply to Nefreet.


So you are saying that I should have taken the issue over Tanya's head? To Mike?

I did happen to meet Mike at the convention. Heck of a nice guy. I honestly didn't feel the need to bother him with such a (relatively) petty issue.

I was hoping that by bringing it here to the boards that I would be given information on a method of resolution. I didn't realize that the only option was for someone to take care of this issue only when it happens. Honestly, that seems like a poor policy. We were all (everyone at the table) pretty upset about the issue right then and I think it probably would have been the WORST time to have talked about it. Tensions were high and all that.

So now is it true that because we didn't seek resolution at the time that some unwritten policy wasn't followed? If that is true, I honestly have to say that I am let down by lack of player support from the PFS community.

...I guess I will bring it to my VC, though. I appreciate your input.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First of all, I want to point out that I am not creating this thread because I'm trying to get anyone in trouble or anything else of the sort. That is not the goal here. An unfortunate thing happened that was outside of the control of the players and I am curious if there is any kind of remedy.

My son and I recently attended Gencon and had a great time. Well, at all but one of our games, anyway. So when we were sitting down to play Slave Master's Mirror two other players were already decided on what characters they were going to play. One was a 5th level two weapon fighter and the other was a 5th level Arcanist. My son and I were undecided coming into the table when when they were playing these characters we tried to get the characters that we closest level. We are fairly new to PFS so our highest level PFS characters were level 4. My "human" "rogue" (half-orc barbarian) and his Cavalier tank (he is built around using aid another actions to up AC).

The 5th player at the table was pretty fluid in which character he would play and since we needed a healer he narrowed his choices down to those. Due to the way subtier mechanics are figured his character choice really determined which subteir we were going to fight in. I didn't understand the full levity of his choice at the time but as he was a veteran, I think he did. He chose to play his 5th level Bard. That put our APL at 4.6 and as I understand it that is just enough to bump us up to subtier 6-7. This kinda screwed us as our 4th level characters were the front liners facing CR7+ bad guys. We truly were outmatched.

This player could have chose to play any other level character and it would have been more advantageous to the party. If he played a higher level character we would have been more survivable as a party. If he played a lower level character then we would have been down a subtier. As it was ... I don't honestly see how we could have won.

Now, that wasn't the GM mistake, though. This adventure is one with rules for table size and the GM threw at us the highest number of creatures to challenge us. He missed the part about where he was supposed to remove creatures from fights. He was asked this by another player during the game but said he couldn't find anything in the scenario that talked about it. After the game the other player asked to look at the scenario, found the rule and pointed it out to the GM. The GM acknowledged his mistake but it was too late. The damage was done.

My son's PC died. The Arcanist died. Everyone except the Bard was knocked unconscious. My character was 2 points short of death in unconsciousness which was a very lucky place to be as a Barbarian who went down while raging.

After the deaths occurred the GM went to the front coordinator's desk and talked to a woman named Tanya whom I was told is one of the front runners to take over for Mike Brock. Tanya acknowledged the mistake as well and gave him a way for the surviving PCs to make it out alive and for resurrection attempts to be made. The Bard's player had a boon that allowed him to resurrect a character and was happy to do so realizing that his choice played a huge part in the challenge we faced. My son used all of his money and prestige points, all of my character's money and some of the other players' to pay for his raise dead and restorations.

I was going to bring it to my local venture lieutenant but was told by someone else that I shouldn't bother as she wouldn't be able to do anything about it. I don't know my local venture captain very well yet, I have only met him once and it was at Gencon. I am going to be playing in another small convention that he is running next weekend but didn't want my first real interaction with him be basically about me b!#~+ing about some bad experience at Gencon. So instead I decided to bring it to the boards... logical, right?

Anyway, are we just SOL? I mean, the near TPK was in large part due to the GM's mistake. I'm not saying he should be punished either. It was an unfortunate situation. I don't think anyone should be punished but least of all the players. I considered not bringing this up at all and I was hoping it would stop bothering me but it hasn't. My son is bothered by it to the point of not wanting to even play the character anymore (he was close to making a big purchase but now all of his money and prestige are gone). We are both pretty disheartened by the experience.

I have talked to other PFS GMs since then and they all have given pretty much the same feedback: they have told me that if they were running and had made this kind of mistake and it lead to this kind of issue that they simply would have retconned it as they wouldn't have wanted to be responsible for a TPK that was avoidable due to their mistake.

Does anyone have any advice for us?


How is the character over encumbrance? All his gear merges with him when he polymorphs. That stuff is all part of his body, it doesn't count against his weight unless it specifically says that it does, if he puts it on after he shapes or it retains it's shape regardless of whether he shapes or not.


As I said, I tried convincing him not to go Lame but he would have nothing of it. So those are the constraints that I have to work within.


I think we found a solution. Bloodrager seems like the best option for a single level dip. It gives Fast Movement that stacks with everything including Longstrider which is now "on his spell list". He can spend 2PP and get a wand of it at 2nd level. That will make his movement speed while in medium armor 30. At 10th level Oracle that goes up to 35.

I think the armor that he should go for is Mithril Full Plate, spending a Trait on Armor Expert and getting Steelbone Frame. That makes his ACP -0 and still allows him to keep his fast movement from Bloodrager. Expeditious Retreat is also on his spell list, as is Haste. This gives him some wand options.

Plus, Bloodrage doesn't suck. Celestial seems like the best Bloodline fit as it makes all his attacks aligned and still stacks with Holy.

Honestly, the only downside at that point is that it still delays Oracle caster progression. Also, taking out that level of Fighter moves his feats all down and requires that he actually take Endurance and Diehard. But at least he doesn't have to spend one on Divine Protection anymore. The net affect is he doesn't get Toughness until later (but he already has a massive Con) and he skips Selective Channel altogether. Not a major loss, really as for this build he will be doing most of his healing to only himself.


Thanx for the help guys. LordAwesome is my son.

I didn't notice the ACG errata on Divine Protection. Damn, I really need to read that in full. Paizo goin' rampant with the nerf stick all o'er the place.

Just to elaborate a bit LordAwesome is looking for a long term solution to a long term problem. I tried to convince him out of Lame for a small sized character. It seems that his logic is that he believes immunity to fatigue will be worth it in PFS due to the number of adventures with climate based effects that will cause fatigue. I don't see that as worth it but he isn't to be convinced so those are the confines I have to work within to help him make his concept not suck.

The pony is really a short term solution that only works for places he will be able to take it. He doesn't have a single rank in ride and I doubt he will be taking any. Level 10 Oracle will help some but that is a long time off. He will need a better solution before then.

He really wants that 1 level of Unbreakable Fighter. I can understand it as it is a powerhouse level and those feats will help him with staying up after taking a bunch of damage from Life Link. Fitting in a level of Barbarian would certainly help with the movement speed issues but I fear it would water him down too much from the slow casting progression of Oracle especially after doing the Fighter level as well.

The only solutions I can think of are as follows:
1. A level of Barbarian (or Bloodrager, I suppose).
Pros - +10ft movement that stacks with Boots of Striding and Springing, good HP for one level which will help with soaking from Life Link, Rage gives some options for melee. If he goes with Bloodrager then Longstrider is considered "on his spell list" and he could effectively use a wand of it.
Cons - Even further delaying Oracle progression along with the Fighter dip, the only heavy armor option while retaining the movement bonus is Mithril heavy armor and that is rather expensive.
...one option is to take out the Fighter level. Not taking Divine Protection frees up one feat and he could swap another to get Diehard online.

2. Obtaining the Travel Domain.... only way I see viable is Cleric or Inquisitor.
Pros - +10ft movement that stacks with Boots of Striding and Springing ...thats about it.
Cons - Wis is so low he wouldn't get to cast any spells, even domain spells (I think?). That pretty much means he would be taking a level to get 0 BAB, 2 good saves and s&$&ty skill points. ...and the movement.

3. Ponies and Boots.
Pros - Do not have to invest in spending levels not in Oracle, solves the problem by just throwing gold at it.
Cons - The wait is long, ponies don't always help, boots only bring him up to his normal movement speed which is still crap until level 10.

What he really needs is a way to grab a domain without having high Wis. Honestly if he could get that then it would basically solve his issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say that I am firmly in Oddman80's camp on this one.

Just looked back at 3.x rules and he is right the new Wild is the old Beastskin and that was (and really only should be) worth +2 enhancement bonus.

I think everyone would be alright with it if it were just a +cost bonus rather than a +x enhancement bonus.

Either way this isn't really a FAQ type thing. They are not providing clarity about the way something works. They are changing it. It is the same kind of thing that they did with a number of other rules CHANGES like Slashing Grace, Spirit's Gift, etc. I am opposed to this new change in how things are done.

If it is a rules change then it should be errata and should be changed in future printings. If it is a FAQ then it should not be a change. FAQ is for clarifications.

I think this is what has a lot of people upset. If Paizo would just admit that they are changing something and a simple reason of why it would avoid a lot of these debates. Just something as simple as "we felt this needed to be changed due to balance issues that it caused" would probably be fine (although I would disagree with it on this particular ruling based on a long established accepted bonus:power ratio).


Urath DM wrote:
Lune wrote:

So we are agreed? The PC can "force" his animal companion?

...boy we took the long way around that discussion. ;)

Absolutely, unequivocally, not.

Training does not "force" the creature to do anything. "Force" being measured on the scale of a compulsion magical effect that literally over-rides the normal behavior of the creature.

An animal trained through fear will obey as long as the threat of punishment remains real. As soon as that threat is removed, the animal will flee or turn on its abuser.

If you don't accept that, then we are coming at this from different assumptions, and just need to agree to disagree.

Aside from why this is psychologically untrue which Dallium touched on, and why how you say an animal will react is also often untrue there is that whole rules thing. Nothing of what you said is true within the rules.

Just because a GM doesn't like the idea of an AC being abused by it's master doesn't give him the right to remove the character's Animal Companion class ability. That is what you would effectively be doing by saying "your animal flees from your abuse" or worse, using the class ability against the character. There is nowhere in the rules that it says that an AC will flee from the character or turn on them. You are making that up based on your opinion of how it should work in the real world.

But when we are talking about the Handle Animal skill it most certainly does "force" an animal to do what you are trying to get them to do with a successful check. They don't even get a saving throw like a charm or compulsion effect. It most certainly DOES override the normal behavior of the creature. That, in fact, is exactly what it does.


I'm not talking about abuse. I'm stating that the master can FORCE his companion to do things. "Force" being the word that started this whole tangent in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Oddman80 on this one. It doesn't make sense and the change doesn't make sense. I don't have a character that it affects currently so I'm just not as passionate about it. But he is speaking logic.


So we are agreed? The PC can "force" his animal companion?

...boy we took the long way around that discussion. ;)


alexd1976: I understand that you are trying to come up with the most extreme example possible. It has not changed my opinion or much less what the rules state.

Saying that a character loses a class feature because they mistreated it needs a specific rule. They do exist. Cavaliers, Paladins, Samurais and others all have class abilities that can be removed if they do not follow a set of actions. Druid's/Hunters/Rangers/etc. do not have a rule like this for their ACs. Neither is there any rule similar to that for Handle Animal.

What you are proposing is that if a GM doesn't like how their character are treating their AC that they can take away the class feature. And (outside of GM fiat) that just isn't true.

Before you went down the wild tangent of sawing off your AC's paws this was about the Flank trick and whether or not using Handle Animal "forces" them to do something or not. If we could return to that topic briefly I stand by agreeing with the original person who stated that: "forcing" is an apt description.


How'd I miss that? Sorry. Thanx. ...odd.


Oddman80: You got a link to JJ's statement by chance just for reference?

1 to 50 of 2,228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.