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. 2,562 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 7 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 2,562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

"An answer has been provided."

...not really. Individual opinion have been provided. Debate has been provided.

This isn't something anyone should have to expect table variation on. I just want to know whether a new item has to be purchased or if it can be upgraded.

As I stated in my original post I have already read through the sticky thread and didn't see an answer (or even the question) or I wouldn't have posted here asking.

....perhaps this she be included in the blog if it is this broadly questioned.

...and what about Lesser to Greater?

I can see what both sides are saying and I can see logic on both sides. But has there been a ruling on anything like this before? Do we need to have this ruling made on this?

I don't mean to be pedantic but this thread so far hasn't really answered my question. There seems to be a lot of disagreements on this question and I didn't realize it was that deep of an issue. Has anything like this been ruled on before?

What about upgrading any of the Lesser belts to Greater versions?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

SCARAB... is that where they played the game "Run Pathfinder"?

So, it doesn't say it is a "Belt of Giant Strength that also does x"... it does use the exact same text to describe the first part as the Belt of Giant Strength does. Come to think of it I can't think of any item that says it is X magic item except it does y. Maybe if you gave an example?...

Belt of Thunderous Charging


An engraving of a charging rhinoceros decorates this thick leather belt.

The belt grants its wearer a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn.

The belt magnifies the wearer’s momentum whenever she charges, granting her a +2 bonus on bull rush and overrun maneuvers. Furthermore, when the wearer makes a charge attack, her melee weapons and natural weapons deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are.

Oh? If that is true it should be listed in the sticky thread above. I'm not doubting you but if what you say is true but people are frequently misinformed then I would ask for your source of this information so I can have it on hand.

Ah, you answered my next question with the lesser/greater thing too. Thanx!

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I have read the sticky thread above regarding upgrading your gear in PFS. It covers alot and is helpful. However my question is not covered there. I apologize if is answered elsewhere and I have missed it.

Is one able to upgrade a Belt of Giant Strength to a Belt of Thunderous Charging?

Adamantine Shurikens are still destroyed once you throw them.


The first sentence of Endless Ammunition... wrote:
Only bows and crossbows can be made into endless ammunition weapons—firearms and other projectile weapons cannot.

lol, how did I not get that? I guess text comes across as more literal.

I dunno if spending more feats on utility is the right thing to do when I still need to concentrate on upping to-hit.

Ventnor: Nope.

Here, I'll show you how I plan on building.


Str 8
Dex 16
Con 12
Int 16+2
Wis 10
Cha 12

Swashbuckler levels are all Inspired Blade
Investigator levels are all Empiricist
Swashbuckler 1
Inspired Penache, Inspired Finesse, Derring-Do, Dodging Penache, Opportune Parry and Riposte, Weapon Focus: Rapier (bonus), Fencing Grace (1st), Fast Learner (human)
Investigator 1
Alchemy, Inspiration, Trapfinding
Investigator 2
Ceaseless Observation, Extra Inspiration (3rd)
Investigator 3
Talent: Mutagen, Keen Recollection, Trap Sense +1
Investigator 4
Studied Combat, Studied Strike: 1d6, Unfailing Logic, Extra Talent: Expanded Inspiration (5th)
Investigator 5
Talent: Quick Study
Investigator 6
Studied Strike: 2d6, Trap Sense +2, Extra Talent: Trap Spotter (7th)
Investigator 7
Talent: Effortless Aid
Investigator 8
Studied Strike: 3d6, Extra Talent: Inspirational Expertise (9th)
Investigator 9
Talent: Underworld Inspiration, Trap Sense +3
Investigator 10
Studied Strike: 4d6, Extra Talent: Combat Inspiration (11th)
Investigator 11
Talent: Amazing Inspiration, Poison Immunity

He is currently level 2 in PFS and has been very effective so far.

I like it because it mixes so well with the Swashbuckler's Inspired Blade Archetype. Swashigators are the best!

Torbyne: You get basically the same deal with Focused Weapon.

Yeah, I'm definitely not dropping two levels of Ninja. However, I guess I could drop Monk for more Fighter. I wanted to get Flurry of Blows but I guess Two Weapon Fighting is basically the same thing.

Focused Weapon is definite worth getting and I would suppose that it would make up for not using Deadly Aim if I dropped that. That would give me some to-hit back too.

Yeah, I think I'm going to rebuild this a bit with the above in mind.

Trained Grace is melee only and I do not have Weapon Finesse in the build. I could include it but since it doesn't affect thrown Shurikens I think I'm going to take a pass.

Also, all of the Weapon Mastery feats kinda suck for this build.

Focused Weapon does look good though. It ups his base weapon damage. What I really need are things that up his to hit bonus, though.

Chess Pwn: One for Flurry of Stars and one to take an extra attack with normal Ki use. But you are right... I can only do one so that takes an attack away.

Now for making my build worse you have to find some way to make it better as recompense.

Mister Fabulous: I don't own the book yet but if I get rid of Weapon Training doesn't that also get rid of the ability to use Gloves of Dueling? Get rid of +3 to hit and damage seems like something I would never want to do.

SheepishEidolon: Hm. That actually does sound interesting. I would go with an entirely different build for that. For this one I want to go with getting the most Shurikens in the air and hitting with them as possible.

Aw... no big loss though.

Ah, good catch. Yeah, that helps some. :)

I actually also do not know a lot about Golarion lore. I honestly do need to read up on it and plan on remedying that soon. Does anyone have any good ideas of where to fit such a character into Golarion? I haven't picked his faction, home country, religion, etc.

I actually also do not know a lot about Golarion lore. I honestly do need to read up on it and plan on remedying that soon. Does anyone have any good ideas of where to fit such a character into Golarion? I haven't picked his faction, home country, religion, etc.

I was thinking maybe going Exchange and being a reknown caravan guard. Perhaps Desna as the deity?

So here is my build:



Str 15-2
Dex 16+2
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 10
Cha 13+2

All Fighter levels are Weapon Master Fighter
All Monk levels are Weapon Adept

Fighter 1
Weapon Focus: Shuriken (Fighter 1), Point Blank Shot (1st)
Ninja 1
Poison Use, Sneak Attack 1d6
Ninja 2
Ki Pool, Ninja Trick: Flurry of Stars, Startoss Style (3rd)
Fighter 2
Weapon Guard, Rapid Shot (Fighter 2)
Monk 1
Flurry of Blows, Improved Unarmed Strike, Perfect Strike, Deflect Arrows (Monk 1), Startoss Comet (5th)
Monk 2
Weapon Focus (bonus, retrain to Precise Shot), Dodge (Monk 2)
Fighter 3
Weapon Training +1, Startoss Shower (7th)
Fighter 4
Weapon Specialization: Shuriken (Fighter 4)
Fighter 5
Reliable Strike, Deadly Aim (9th)
Fighter 6
(Fighter 6)
Fighter 7
Weapon Training +2, (11th)
Fighter 8
(Fighter 8)

FYI - This character is based loosely on Kennen from League of Legends fame. The only weapon the character will use outside of Shuriken is a single Star Knife. Shuriken I plan on being the staple for this character, though.

There weren't any Alternate Racial Traits that I found very tantalizing besides Fleet of Foot. I have no idea what Traits I'm going to use.

At 10th level this is what his attack routine will look like when spending 2 points of Ki:

(+8 BAB, +1 Weapon Focus, +3 Weapon Training, +1 Small Size, +6 Dex, +1 Masterwork, -2 Flurry of Blows, -2 Rapid Shot, -2 Flurry of Stars, -3 Deadly Aim)

So, 7 attacks. Those bonuses are not considering any magic items except the Gloves of Dueling and a +4 Dex belt. Both should easily be affordable by that level. There isn't a lot more that can add to the Shuriken attacks without getting magical Shurikens which is a waste. I could grab a Wand (or potions) of Greater Magic Weapon I suppose and that might help some.

Damage will look like the following:
17 (1 base weapon damage, +6 Deadly Aim, +2 Weapon Specialization, +6Startoss Style, +2 Str)

So 17 damage per hit. If I could get all attacks to hit in the full attack above (doubtful as those are pretty low bonuses) then the damage would be 119 with absolutely no variation as no dice get rolled for damage. If I add in a Wand of Flame Arrow to enchant that ammo it ups the average damage to 143.5.

Yeah, I'm not actually very pleased with the build to be honest. I was hoping it would be a fair amount more effective. Hopefully I'm missing some no brainer things to help. I am fine with playing a build if it isn't so much effective but is still fun. The build could still make a good scout.

I have the last 3 feats unpicked as I'm not sure what to get. I was considering a lot of things. Maybe Far Shot and Clustered Shots? I considered going with Eldritch Heritage: Shadow feats because that can be fun on a Ninja type character. Or maybe going with Extra Rogue Talent to pick up some Ninja Tricks like Shadow Clone and Vanishing Trick. Then again that is going to cut into my Ki Pool which I intend on spending mainly on Flurry of Stars. I suppose I could pick up Extra Ki but that doesn't really seem like a wise investment especially when I can just get a Wand of Mirror Image.

I really was hoping to up that damage more. That is the biggest let down of the build. There are some items that can help to up the damage that I can think of. The Robe of Stars is going to be a must have item. Any spells that buff ammo will be helpful.

I can't think of much more that would help. Anyone have any ideas?

So since the Weapon Masters handbook is not only out but legal for play in PFS I thought I would post my build concept and see what you all thought and if it looks fairly viable.

The Build:

Str 16-2
Dex 13+2
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 12
Cha 8+2

Halfling with Warslinger trait

Fighter 1
Weapon Focus: Sling (1st), Slipslinger Style (Fighter 1)
Fighter 2
Bravery +1, Point-Blank Shot (Fighter 2)
Fighter 3
Armor Training, Rapid Shot (3rd)
Fighter 4
Power Attack (4th)
Fighter 5
Deadly Aim (5th)
Alchemist 1
Throw Anything (bonus)
Alchemist 2
Slipslinger Grenadier (7th)
Fighter 6
Bravery +2, Quick Draw (Fighter 6)
Fighter 7
Armor Training, Slipslinger Bombardment
Fighter 8
Weapon Specialization (Fighter 8)
Fighter 9
Weapon Training, Greater Weapon Focus (9th)
Fighter 10
Bravery +3, Arc Slinger (Fighter 10)

Purity of Faith
Defender of the Society

I want both Weapon Training and Armor Training. Weapon Training because I will have only one weapon I ever use so it just makes sense especially with Gloves of Dueling. Armor Training as I will be going deep into Fighter so Mithral Full Plate will really be the best armor for him.

I don't plan on ever using Alchemist Bombs and my Fort saves should be stellar so I was planning on going Vivisectionist/Trap Breaker. Poison is nice but expensive and difficult to use in PFS so I don't mind losing that.

Equipment of choice will be a Darkwood Slingstaff, Mithral Full Plate (Celestial Full Plate doesn't exist in PFS) and a Mithral Buckler. I am likely going to seek out getting a wand of Flame Arrow and once I get into Alchemist I will be pumping out the Alchemical Ammo. I'll also carry a variety of stone types for overcoming DR. Boots of Striding and Springing will be a high priority item as well. As long as my party doesn't run in front of me though, I should have no issue pulling enemies to my party and it isn't even a priority to run up to engage with the character but he can excel in both roles.

Outside of that I don't have much but I think everything else should fall into place fairly naturally. His AC should be crazy high for when he does engage in melee. His ranged DPR should be well enough to attract some attention.

What do you think? Any suggestions?

I'm not going to harp on the issue as I would like an official clarification to be made on this as well, but I do find it a bit disingenuous to not have linked to the designer's comments. He basically says they are designed to work together.

I think short of a FAQ that is the best answer we can hope to get anyway.

By the way, have I mentioned yet that Alexander is my favorite designer? He seems to make all of the missing things I most want to do.

Weirdo gets the issue that I'm pointing out.

The basic question put in a specific example would go something like:
By RAW can you identify a Celestial horse gained via the Celestial Servant feat (thus making it a Magical Beast) with Knowledge Nature?

The first question is nearly rhetorical as RAW is pretty clear and straightforward on which Knowledge skills are used to identify which creatures. The only real reason I am asking is because something Tonya recently said (linked above) rubs against those rules.

Then the follow up question if you answered "no" to the above:
What physically makes a Celestial horse different enough to not be recognized as a horse?

The same questions could be asked regarding the other examples above like the Dwarf Zombie, etc.

Atarlost wrote:
Lune wrote:
...hmm, maybe I should just stick to using a Buckler and two handing the Slingstaff. The downfall is I would just have to suck up the -1 penalty for fighting using the Buckler arm and less attacks. The upside is saving 2 feats and still getting better damage ratios when 2 handing it.
You don't gain any AC from a buckler if you attack with the arm it's on.

I know that. I meant that with a Buckler you have the option of two handing (like to help overcome DR) while if you go with any kind of shield you lose that option. I have conceded that it is not worth the 2 feats to shield bash and not lose the AC. What I am considering now is whether it is worth it to just get TWF to have the option of bashing or just use a Buckler and not waste a feat. If I feel I need to up my damage I could always forgoe some AC and two hand the Slingstaff.

I also think they should be dealt with accordionly.

Aren't games reported on a user's Paizo account? Couldn't a VO just look to see who reported his game and send them a friendly private message?

Can a VO really kick a person out from a local group for a perceived issue when the real problem is the VO themselves breaking the rules and being too proud to admit it?

This, if true, seems heinous indeed.

...hmm, maybe I should just stick to using a Buckler and two handing the Slingstaff. The downfall is I would just have to suck up the -1 penalty for fighting using the Buckler arm and less attacks. The upside is saving 2 feats and still getting better damage ratios when 2 handing it.

Now that this is also allowed in PFS I have been working on a build. I'll prolly post on it tonight or tomorrow. I'm dropping the Nature Fang concept in favor of a nearly full Fighter switch hitter build.

The goal of the build will be to get Mithral Full Plate ASAP which will count as Light armor thanks to Fighter Armor Training. Since I also want Weapon Training that doesn't leave much room for Archetypes which is just fine. Base Fighter should work well for the concept.

I also want to use a Light Steel Shield (probably also Mithral) as there is really no downfall to it. I have this problem with whenever I make a character that uses a shield to want to take Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash but I think I need someone to talk me out of it here due to the number of feats I already need to take. ...but it could be so good! ... somebody hold me back!

Oh, nice. I can make my Halfling Slipslinger now. :)

Thanx for providing that clarity, Kalindlara. :)

So, I figured that it might be identifiable as at least looking horselike with Perception. Knowing what you are looking at would require the appropriate Knowledge skill (Arcana) and having the inappropriate Knowledge skill would either give no information or potentially misinformation.

It would have to look (smell? ...sound?) different enough from a horse for it to not be misidentified as a horse (which apparently some believe is completely impossible by RAW). If that is true then I would think that a Disguise check would be required to MAKE it look like a horse.

Is that all correct? Is my head in the wrong place on that?

N N 959 wrote:
It doesn't say anything about a failed check leading to misinformation.

The rules for Skill Checks states, "Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure depending on how much your check is above or below the required DC." With a failure on a Knowledge check what does that mean? I can tell you that many GMs will tell you that if you fail bad enough that you actually have misinformation. I have literally seen it happen hundreds of times.

N N 959 wrote:
This isn't RAW, this is the PFS Coordinator trying to make an official ruling. Basically she's telling everyone that if you have a Magical Beast, the "description" of the animal must start with the base creature. The fact that she's allowing K-Nature to bring back info is, once again, not RAW. Per RAW, the K-Nature would bring back nothing. But that isn't sensible, so it's reasonable that K-Nature would tell you that it looks like a horse, but there's something definitely not normal about it. The idea is that you're using K-Nature to tell you that its physical form is closest to a horse.

Well, as far as PFS goes what she says goes regardless of how sound her ruling is by RAW. I entirely agree with you that using the wrong Knowledge skill to identify a creature goes against RAW but in PFS it no longer matters. If Tonya says something on a board it is a rule that must be followed.

My personal opinion is that you don't need a Knowledge check to see that it looks like a horse. You got eyes for that. Maybe a Perception check if the lighting is bad. You might also notice some other qualities about it. Like a glow coming from behind it's eyes and inside it's nostrils, a feathered mane, etc. But you wouldn't know what to make of those features without an appropriate Knowledge check. And Knowledge: Nature is not the appropriate Knowledge check to get you anything on a Magic Beast. You get nothing from a Knowledge: Nature check that you can't see with your eyes. Knowledge: Arcana is what you would need to get any info on the critter before you. That skill would tell you what it is. The only thing that Knowledge: Nature might tell you is that you don't have the appropriate Knowledge check to identify this creature.

N N 959 wrote:
Let's say you rolled a 20 on K-Nature. The GM should tell you, "It looks like a horse, but you're pretty sure it's not an actual horse and you don't know what it really is." So no, the K-check using the wrong skill won't tell you what it is, just that you can't identify it. Consider that if you rolled a 10 and the DC was 12, the GM might say, "it looks like the horse, but you aren't sure."

Yep. That looks like the slightly shorter way of saying what I just described above. It looks like we agree on this.

N N 959 wrote:
Tonya says that in PFS, you must describe the creature based on its base type. That description is independent of any K-check. In other words, a celestial horse cannot be described as a griffon.

First of all, please back off the griffon bit. No one is trying to describe a horse as a griffon. That is clearly against the rules as has been pointed out several times in another thread.

I can agree that the creative description of the critter has to start with the base form. The problem is that with it no longer being identifiable as that base form there has to be visual differences between the two enough to make someone no longer be able to identify it as that base form.

You MUST agree with this as your view is a bit more extreme than mine. You said that even a failed Knowledge check cannot give you misinformation. So that means even if someone used Knowledge: Nature to identify the Celestial horse Magical Beast and failed that there is no way that they could mistake it as a horse. Seriously... how do you reconcile those two points?

1. It has to look exactly like a horse and nothing else.
2. Your failed Knowledge check using the incorrect Knowledge skill to identify it cannot tell you that it is a horse.

One of those two points cannot be correct. Either there has to be visual queues to distinguish it from NOT looking like a horse or a failed Knowledge check using the incorrect Knowledge skill could misidentify it as a horse.

Unless I miss my mark, I think you and I both disagree just as strongly that the limits of describing your Magical Beast Celestial horse stop at "looks like a horse". Am I right? It has to look different enough from a horse to not be mistakenly identified as one with the inappropriate Knowledge skill. We are both on the same page on this?

That is what the discussion about using the Disguise skill is about: to look like a different race than you are. In other words trying to make a Celestial horse look like a horse would require a Disguise check. You would get a -2 for looking like a different race. I would think that being an entirely different creature Type would qualify as at least a different race. IMO a greater negative might be in order.

The only problem with this is that Disguise is opposed to Perception. That would only make you think that it is a horse rather than a Celestial horse that is a Magical Beast. I suppose at that point a character would make a Knowledge check using the incorrect Knowledge skill if they wanted to know more about this creature and they believed it was a horse. Same thing would go for gussying up that Dwarven Zombie and making it look like a normal Dwarf that isn't Undead at all.

Weirdo: I think your reasoning is much like mine on how it normally should be run.

1. If you don't have the appropriate Knowledge check then you can't identify the creature. ie. any commoner with a single rank in Knowledge: Nature would know what a horse is. But most commoners don't have Knowledge: Arcana so they wouldn't even get a check on a Magical Beast.

2. If you can't make a check on a creature then you don't know what it is.

3. If you can make a check on the creature then you have to use the appropriate Knowledge skill and then you could get info about both it's base creature and it's Type as well as specific information about this creature. A failed Knowledge check might give misinformation about any of this.

4. Using an inappropriate Knowledge skill would give you none of this information.

Regarding sending PCs to the stables there was a comment made in the linked thread about a human looking Eidolon (with Disguise skill and all) masquerading as the PC's wife being denied entry into an inn and told they have to wait in the stables while the Tiefling Alchemist with an extra hand and tentacle was allowed in. It relates to the use of the disguise skill in order to make a creature look more like something else, even a different Type and how that relates to the Knowledge skill to identify it.

All I want for Christmas (from Paizo) is an answer to this question. sweet would that be?

Ah, good catch on the item. I am going to have to consider it's usefulness for my character.

As an example:
If an enemy Druid identified the Celestial horse with "KN:Nature says its a funky horse." would they know not to try casting Charm Animal on it? I mean would they be thinking, "Wait... that isn't a horse at all." Or would the know right away because they do not have the appropriate Knowledge skill to identify it and would be more like, "Hm, I don't know WHAT that thing is but with the amount I know about animals I can be assured it sure isn't one of them. So I'm not even going to try my Charm Animal on it."

Likewise with an enemy Wizard using Knowledge: Arcana. He would surely be able to identify it as a Magical Beast but would he know about any of the horse aspects of it? Other than basic equine aesthetic features does it even possess horse aspects? Would he be able to tell the Druid not to waste his spell on it? Or would he not quite know because it looks sorta horseish?

Or is it a little of both? Like the Knowledge: Nature tells you all the horseish stuff including that it definitely isn't a horse while not being entirely unlike a horse while Knowledge: Arcana tells you all the Magical Beastish stuff including that while it looks horseish that is where the similarities end. And then Knowledge: The Planes walks in all jealous talking about how Celestial things belong to it but this is for some reason the weird exception that doesn't apply.

Weirdo: I dunno, with all of the talk about sending PCs to the stables I'm not certain that many DMs think the text you posted is anything more than fluff.

See, the reason I am asking is because Tonya said that "KN:Nature says its a funky horse. KN:Arcana says its a magical horse."

Part of me can understand the reason why she would say that. But part of me that bothers because I know that the rules say that isn't how it works. Knowledge skills say you have to use the appropriate Knowledge skill to identify a creature according to it's Type (Magical Beast). If that wasn't the case not only would Knowledge skills be broken down by Type but there wouldn't be Disguise skill modifiers to trying to look like a different Type.

But, like I said, I can see some things being known without the appropriate Knowledge skills. Like knowing that the stout bearded Zombie used to be a Dwarf.

I had actually wondered the same thing recently and came to the same conclusion that a poster in the linked thread did. ...and arrived at the same impasse that Pathfinder failed to define "turn".

Does anyone have an answer on that?

There are no stats for shoelaces so they don't exist.

I have been thinking about this topic a lot recently due an Aasimar character I have that took the Celestial Servant feat. She has a Celestial horse and the feat actually changes it's type to Magical Beast.

So the Knowledge skill rules tell us that we use Knowledge: Arcana to identify Magical Beasts. It does seem a bit odd in this circumstance as you would think a Celestial critter would be identified with Knowledge: Planes but such is not the case.

So, does that mean it is no longer identifiable as a horse? I am torn on this. I know the rules say that things are identifiable by their type. So by RAW I would think it really isn't identifiable as a horse anymore because it isn't even an animal.

I could see a Commoner with a rank in Knowledge: Nature saying, "Nope. Definitely not a horse er even an animal. See the light comin outta it's nostrils and from behind it's eyes? Yep, that thar critter ain't natural. Don't know what it is but it certainly aint no horse."

I could also see the reverse. Take a Dwarf Zombie as an example. It is no longer identified with Knowledge: Local. It is identified with Knowledge: Religion. But are you telling me that when you see a stocky humanoid Zombie with a long beard that it is unreasonable to make a Knowledge: Local check to know that it was once a Dwarf?

There is obviously some gray area here. We all know about the Vampires that like to masquerade as ... not Vampires. If it were possible to know that they definitely are no longer identifiable as a humanoid because they don't ping on your Knowledge: Local meter anymore then how do they do this? Same goes for any number of other fantasy races trying to pass themselves off as human. Like Aasimar, Tiefling, Undine or any of the other elemental races.

I know that the Disguise skill exists for when you want your X to look like a Y. But what if you aren't trying to disguise anything and are just trying to gauge NPC reactions? In other words: would I need to use disguise on my Celestial horse to avoid people from knowing it is Celestial if I don't want them to? What if I DO want it to look different? I know it must look somewhat different or it wouldn't require a different Knowledge skill to identify it.

Please keep in mind that my particular conundrum is with a PFS character. While I am interested in personal opinions on this topic I would appreciate it if you tagging which things you are saying is your personal opinion on how you would rule on something and which you believe is the RAW interpretation and why.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Only if they want it masterwork.

Most of those items already exist as part of another outfit. The fact that they are not available a la carte doesn't mean they don't exist.

Except socks. There are no socks in Pathfinder.

Oh, I dunno. I, for one, am finding this all very entertaining.

Here is one part I liked:

Andrew Christian wrote:
Nobody is suggesting tearing up chronicle sheets and invalidating the table.

While I know we are way off topic from the original topic of the thread there is one person who was suggesting something fairly close to that.

MisterSlanky wrote:
... that GM wind up reporting your character "dead".

Now, it is taken a bit out of context as he erroneously thought that I was purposefully trying to violate the reskinning rules while I was actually trying to find the bounds within I could legally describe something.

My point in bringing it up is that perhaps many here do not see such extreme views as being common or consider their own views as being close minded or short sited. As an outside observer I can tell you that seems ironically humorous to me.

I think some of the views expressed here are extremely hard lined, close minded and short sighted. I can tell you that even from my limited PFS experience that there are groups of players, GMs, VLs and VCs that agree. I can also tell you which of the two points of view are the more welcoming to new players but I would think that would be obvious.

I didn't come here asking for a way to break rules any more than Nefreet's players were trying to do that. They were looking for a way to have a good time within the rules but were a bit let down by not being able to play what they had brought. No one walked away thinking they are allowed to break rules that their GM chooses not to enforce. Everyone knows what they have to do to play within the rules and that they are expected to do that.

Isn't that what is important? ...and nt alienating players who xan turn into excellent contributors.

Nefreet wrote:
You have actually asked a rather in-depth question that isn't an issue for some GMs, but that can really bother others.

That answer really is as close as you will get. Trust me. I know.

But honestly, I can tell you that while your intention to come here and ask these people is well placed that it will get you all of nowhere in actually finding an answer to your question. As others pointed out you are very likely to never play with anyone from these boards at your local table. THOSE are the people you need to talk to.

Yes it is standardized play but that doesn't mean that everyone has the same perspective on the differences between "description" and "reskinning". Reskinning is specifically disallowed (something my local play group has seemed to have forgotten). Creative description... well, you are going to find a wide variety of opinions there.

Some people will be OK, for instance, if you describe a Celstial horse as having a feathered mane and feline like tail. Others will be angry at the mere mention of it despite the fact that their preconception of what a Celestial horse looks like has no basis in actual published Paizo material. But everyone agrees that you cannot describe a Celestial horse to look like a Griffon.

That being said, I agree with what MrTsFloatinghead has said about the pendulum swinging too far with some people (many of the people frequenting threads here) but I can assure you that isn't the case everywhere and the people here are a small subsection of all PFS players and GMs.

Todd Morgan wrote:
I'd just like to say that I'm proud of the people in the community that not only assisted the OP in finding mechanical ways to re-fluff their character but also did so in a polite manner. I am also really appreciative of the way the OP received those messages and the mature way they went about responding. Kudos all around!

Me too. It should always be that way. I'm also happy that even though this question was just asked on another thread that is on the same page that no one here displayed any misplaced aggression towards this poster.

I also wanted to post my agreement with MrTsFloatinghead that I do not agree with the idea of having to "earn" the right to describing your character, their equipment, spells or animal companions how you see fit. The reskinning rules do not cover this. As long as you are not gaining a mechanical benefit by describing your character creatively or saying that your X (that is clearly described in game terms) is a Y (that is clearly described in game terms) then there is no issue.

If you want your human to look dwarflike or have dwarflike features then that is perfectly fine but he is going to be identified as a dwarf when someone makes a Knowledge: Local check.

If you want your Magic Missiles to have a unique look then that is groovy so long as when someone makes a Spellcraft check that they can be identified as Magic Missiles.

If you want your Celestial horse to have feathers on it's mane and a lionlike tail that is fine so long as anyone making a Knowledge: Planes (not Knowledge: Nature, because it isn't an animal) check can identify it as a Celestial horse.

The important part is that none of these things give the character a mechanical advantage and they do not violate existing rules (including the reskinning rules). ...and, apparently some GMs like to see you "earn" a reason to describe you whatever in the way that you are wanting to describe it by spending a feat, trait, skills or money on equipment. That isn't a rule, but is apparently just a preference bias. But if you want to pander to that subset of players/GMs and try to make everyone happy it might not be a bad idea if you plan on playing your character with a wide array of different games.

Otherwise, in my opinion, just ask the people at your local group what their opinion is of what is acceptable (but make sure you aren't also breaking rules).

But that would have deprived us of Nefreet and who does that help?

Also, I feel that everyone should definitely pay attention to this new issue as it is clearly effective at drawing misplaced anger away from me and instead misplacing it on other people. That works far better for me. :)

lutzsd: I can dig it. One thing I can say is that PFS has a lot of villains who are susceptible to mind affecting. Language dependent is more of an issue. There are 3 ways I plan on combatting that: Ring of Eloquence, actually investing in Linguistics and Tongues. It actually makes Tongues a combat buff. That being said I do have to accept it as a weakness that the character has.

I'll still be able to cast spells and use my other abilities. Eventually I get Inspire Greatness and I will still be able to do that even when I can't use Satire. I feel that even without using Satire he is still a passable character.

I do appreciate your input though especially from a perspective of someone who has played a similar concept. :) Any other suggestions?

Doug: Falchion isn't a reach weapon.

Also polearms don't seem very jesterish. I won't have proficiency with anything except Longspear anyway. I'm going to take a pass on that part of your suggestion but I recognize that it is effective.

Kalindlara wrote:
You might find this helpful for your cover woes, assuming you can find a feat slot for it.

If I was going with reach I would likely pick that up.

How about a Nature Fang Druid? With Ranger Archery Style you will get plenty of feats early. Your BAB will lag behind a bit but having a full Animal Companion to run interference or serve as a mount doesn't suck. Plus being a full caster should make up for the lack of BAB. Shillelagh while RAW doesn't apply to a Slingstaff I bet a lot of GMs would allow it. Plus there is Magic Stone.

1 to 50 of 2,562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.