|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Programs like Gimp and Photoshop are designed for image editing.
What you're trying to do is pagesetting - which is a different operation entirely. Sure, if pushed, Gimp could probably do it, but it's not designed for it.
When I print out maps, I use inkscape. You can create a 1" grid (file->document properties-> grids tab), then resize your image to fit it.
The advantage of using something page-based is that you can guarantee that no scaling will be attempted by your printer.
Andrew Christian wrote:
The issue with Ill Omen on that monster is that it's at caster level 1. With that monster's SR of 24, it's impossible for the wand to have any effect.
It's interesting how you bring up the witch here: Channel the Gift doesn't really affect a witch's ability to spam save-or-suck effects with a DC equivalent to a top-level spell.
Ultimately, it appears that the Pathfinder Design Team, starting with the APG, decided that it was reasonable for classes to have at-will abilities with save DCs of this magnitude (see: witch, alchemist, shaman...). Unfortunately, I think the horse has bolted on this.
Paul Jackson wrote:
So new players should 'pay their dues' due to some 'bad game design'?
Maybe we should instead look at changing the XP system: maybe allow players to get "triple credit" for playing a scenario with a new character at level 1 - allow characters to level to two after their first scenario?
One thing that I find extremely worrying in this thread is the attitude that level 1 is something that should be skipped where possible, either by playing evergreens or applying GM credits.
I personally think that this is a very dangerous attitude - especially towards new players who do not have the ability to apply GM credits or similar. Without the more experienced players (and the people who are GMing on the other side of the screen) experiencing play at level 1 - especially with the recent scenarios can give GMs inaccurate readings of the table's capabilities at best, and can dissuade new players from sticking around at worst.
Unlimited GM credits will make this worse.
The biggest question (I don't know if this has ever been resolved) is whether your spellcasting ability is lost as you project a shadow. Unfortunately, it's unclear what the intention of Shadow Projection is...
I think the bigger issue is that it seems that whenever a new ruleset comes out, it seems that it gets shoehorned into a PFS scenario, even if the ruleset is ridiculous, broken, nonfunctional or unnecessary - take Mass Combat and Chase Scenes as other examples.
Expect to see a scenario about Kingdom Building in season eight...
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Mists of Mwangi: A good case to hand faction missions out.
You should probably tell your friends that their "gifts" are technically illegal. Not just in the PFS sense, but as in illegally distributing digital media under U.S. Law.
Unless you are versed in the ins and outs of US intellectual property law, avoid making blanket statements about whether or not this is "technically illegal". Fair Use, for instance, may cover this.
Accusing people of being criminals isn't a good idea in the first place.
Regardless of whether or not it is illegal, you can't use PDFs with other people's watermarks to satisfy the Additional Resources requirements.
Season 0: Asmodeus Mirage was memorable
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
As this thread has probably shown, retraining rules are not used to make an unviable character viable. If your character is unviable, your best bet is either to get your hands on a free retrain boon (rare as hen's teeth), or hope that an errata comes along that allows you to retrain for free.
What people are using the retraining rules for is to either end up with a character that would have otherwise been impossible to make (for example, Pirate Rob's D-dooring Horizon Walker), or to allow a character to make a short-term decision without worrying about the longer-term consequences (Cleave being an obvious example).
Whether this was what was intended, I don't know. But your understanding - looking at it from the context of 'swapping a character' is not how it works.
In an ideal world, no errata would be necessary.
However, at the moment we have a couple of systems:
1. FAQs - these are split between Rules Clarifications, and stealth errata. There are a couple of cases where poorly thought out clarifications (often phrased as a certain interpretation rather than an overt errata) resulted in undesirable unforeseen consequences. An example of this would be the SLA ruling that was used for early entry into prestige classes.
2. Errata - these only get released when a new printing of a book is released, sentencing much of the Pathfinder Chronicle and Companion line to never receiving the errata it deserves. In addition, because it is set in stone when it is printed, Paizo tend to be very conservative about it. An example here would be the Bracers of Falcon's Aim, which was nerfed into uselessness.
The issue is that when an FAQ comes out, it still causes issues - sometimes it's unclear as to whether it was an actual rule change or not. Indeed, they are often worded as a "this is how it's always been interpreted" rather than a "this was printed incorrectly; it should have been different". Compare and contrast the SLA ruling with the Ring of Continuity FAQ-based stealth errata.
It is better to acknowledge that what is being done is errata, and mark it as such. I shouldn't need to refer to the FAQ to know what the rules are.
I believe that this is PFS related, because errata has a much more pronounced effect when one is required to abide by it. (If it isn't, feel free to move it).
This is a feeling that I've had for the past few years, and the recent printing of Ultimate Equipment finally made me post it.
Paizo staff are human, humans make mistakes.
When a published book has an error in it, errata is the only way to properly correct the error. An FAQ might 'clarify' the material (and even change it), and the Campaign Coordinator may choose to disallow it if it is a class or item, but the only way to really fix it is with errata.
And this is where the problems start occurring.
In my time playing PFS, the two most pronounced sets of errata have been the Ultimate Combat changes to various feats (like Crane Style), and these recent Ultimate Equipment changes.
Because of Paizo's policy of "we only errata when we reprint", many of the changes appear rushed, more for the purpose of ensuring that the rules are not abused than resulting in a balanced fix.
This also comes up with further issues with some of the fixes having unintended consequences, such as the Ring of Inner Fortitude negating polymorph spells. And since the second printing has already been typeset and probably sent to the printers, it's unlikely to be properly fixed in the next two years.
I understand that Paizo is not a large company, and that there are always development pressures, but as it stands, there is currently no good method to correct an error.
What we need is a revision of way the errata is issued. It should be decoupled from the release of new books, making it more easily modified and giving a better chance for it to be applied to less popular products. When a new printing of a book is needed, it can be applied and typeset.
Regardless, compelling people to purchase a new book, even a PDF, is horrible policy.
As a player, I don't want to be compelled to purchase a new book, just because it contains an updated version of a legal option that my character has been using for years. It's bad PR and breeds resentment.
It also affects my back and my luggage allowance.
Jason Wu wrote:
This is incorrect. With multiple arms, you have a single "primary hand", and the rest are "off-hands". With the primary hand, you take -6 to hit, and the secondary hands take -10 to hit, similar to two-weapon fighting. This is in addition to attacks granted by your BAB.
For example, with a dex of 16, and a BAB of +7, your six-armed eidolon could attack as follows:
+4 (primary with -6) / -1 (primary iterative with -6) / +0 (secondary) / +0 (tertiary).
Generally, you do not get additional attacks from BAB to non-primary hands.
The concentration check DC would be 10 + the CMB of the person doing the tying, + spell level. However, if they're being questioned at the time, I'd give the PCs an action to stop them (treat as a readied action).
If you're feeling difficult, you'd call it a surprise round, roll initiative, have him 'start casting the spell' and allow anyone who beat him in initiative to take a standard action to stop him.
I would have no problem allowing that ring in my game. For 36000gp, doing 10d6 damage as a touch attack is not at all overpowered. I wouldn't allow it to be activated as part of Spell Combat (if that's what you have in mind). (Although that might be more because of my opinions towards magi rather than anything else).
Looking at the opportunity cost, you can pick up a +4 weapon for 32000gp, which in the right hands would do more than 35 average damage per round.
In all practicality, it'd be unlikely for the ring to be used more that 10 times a day. Probably closer to 4.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
With something like "is this evil", I prefer that we don't draw lines in the sand: it's just adds fuel for arguments (as if the whole alignment system isn't flamebait enough). It's something where context is very important, and a hard and fast rule often does more harm than good.
The fact is, Blood Money + Raise dead comes online, at the earliest, at 10th level (which requires a significant investment in multiclassing). Otherwise an 11th level witch can handle it (although not dumping str in either of these cases is again an investment that doesn't bear fruit for most of a Pathfinder's career).
Regardless, at 10th and 11th level, the ability to raise someone for free isn't actually that powerful an effect: it's only useful after a party has already found themselves on the short end of the stick. How many pathfinders end up Permanently Dead post-9th level anyway?
If we're talking how Blood Money affects the economy, I think the biggest effect that PFS rules effect the economy is how most long-duration (often permanent) spells with material components (Symbol of Revelation, etc) don't carry across between scenarios. I'm not advocating that they should, but blood money makes these spells playable.
This is not the removal of an option. This is a sensible interpretation of the printed rules. It is unthinkable to interpret that this second-level spell was intended to be able to turn a long-duration out-of-combat summoning spell (like Mount) into a creature that's balanced for in-combat short-duration fighting. If such a thing was intended, it would have been printed in there - it is so out-of-line from established expectations that its omission should speak volumes.
As I see it, Alter Summoned Monster was designed to allow a conjurer to switch between different summonable monsters, or even to upgrade numerous smaller monsters.
Not to turn Heightened Mounts into 9-hour-long Large Earth Elementals.
I generally don't believe that the removal of options should be based on theorycraft. After all, an injection of common sense into the game goes a long way - from both sides of the screen.
For the record, there is no reference to Rules As Written in the Guide.
It is simply: Do not contradict written rules, and run scenarios as written.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
Bob Jonquet wrote:
It is unlikely that the resolution will be posted here (as is not typical) especially so if the decision is punitive.
That being said, I think we all would benefit from some general guidance about how to handle situations where a player or two are causing good players to stop attending sessions.
As I see it, the reasoning is that Invisibility clearly states:
There are a couple of things that can prevent this 'disparity' being blown out of proportion.
The obvious one is time constraints - if you're enabling a 'fifteen-minute adventuring day', it is obvious that spellcasters are benefiting much more than non-casters.
What I do in response to most of the theorycrafted arguments that seem to come up in discussions like these (blood money + simulacrum; various different ways of getting unlimited wishes, etc) is to take it ingame, and let the players know that if such an exploit was possible, other people would already be doing it. There is an in-universe reason why it's not happening (and if the player wants to find out what it is, then they're welcome to try and prepare for the consequences...)
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Also four unchained classes, bring it to 42.
For the record, by the end of 3.5, it had 38 base classes - including obscure stuff from the Paizo-published Dragon Magazine.
With regards to classes, Paizo has leaped ahead of 3.5. I believe it is still lagging behind with regards to prestige classes, but it makes up for that with the literal hundreds of archetypes available.
Mike Bramnik wrote:
For the record, the OLDER version of the scorpion whip (the one in the Adventurer's Armoury) is the one that IS legal. The version in Ultimate Equipment is not legal.
Has anyone had issues where a player bought one from UE and was forced to buy AA in order to maintain a legal character?
I want to expand on this and state that there should never be a situation where the release of a new source forces a player to buy it in order to continue playing their character - either allow a full rebuild, or grandfather it in.
I find it interesting the selection of scenarios your GM is putting you through, and there might be a reason for this.
From one perspective, it seems to be a combination of two factors:
I can see that this would cause an escalation of a GM vs Player mentality, which would explain why the GM keeps running scenarios that are not trivialised by your character.
I would suggest speaking with your GM and coming up with an agreement where you all start over with new characters, and provide a bit more balance for everyone.
A couple of reasons: Firstly, it's never considered a 'good' act, so there aren't people arguing that. Secondly, it's pretty difficult to pull off: you need serious levels of wizard or cleric to do it, so it doesn't come up much. Finally, it seems that trying to negotiate a deal with a devil in a summoning circle is so fraught with dangers (the kind of Definitely Table Variation dangers), that they're dealt with pretty quickly.
One of the ways to speed up animal companions in combat is to allow them to act on their masters' initiative. It does give them a small advantage, but it prevents a player being required to handle multiple actions at multiple different times in a round.
When Brock GMed for me, that was how he ran it.
One thing that I would like to see is errata being issued independently of a new printing. This allows a few positive results:
- FAQs can remain as rules clarifications, and can be separated from actual changes.
I generally have a very open policy. In the game I run, I allow everything from the core rulebook, and I will generally allow anything from any other books (including third-party publications), but I will read over them before I allow them.
I don't buy into the argument that Paizo's publications are necessarily more balanced than third-party stuff.
Joe Ducey wrote:
Infernal healing requires devil blood. I shudder to think what substituting it with demon blood would result in...
Andrew Christian wrote:
Maybe I read your previous comments incorrectly, I apologise.
Could you clarify that you believe that opening up rebuilding in the case of errata would cause a rise in powergaming? Or does your opposition to the idea stem from something else?
Benjamin Falk, Andrew Christian:
As far as I can tell, you're saying that the potential for punitive measures on the off chance that Paizo FAQs or erratas something is an effective deterrent to creating overpowered characters.
The presence of overpowered characters under these current measures is evident that this is not effective.
I have asked several of the munchkins in my local community if they are concerned about this, and they general response ranges from "It's a good way of getting Paizo to fix their mistakes", to "I'll worry about that if it happens.". (There was also one player who expressed that they "made this character to get back at Paizo for banning the vivisectionist.")
We should also take into account the other people who are inconvenienced by these measures. The policy is not only punishing the powergamers.
Another more insidious measure that the current policy causes is the view that the PFS leadership does not respect the players affected by the changes. This leads to resentment, and a lack of respect for both this policy, and other policy. When a player self-justifies an unsanctioned rebuild, they are more likely to (for instance), self-justify other unwarranted behaviour.
I feel that the use of punitive measures in response to errata is ineffective as a deterrent to powergaming, and does considerably more harm than good.
I couldn't agree with you more. Once they announced 105 archetypes in the ACG, I knew that it was impossible.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I've seen one person, who found it fun to exploit the math if the game to create some pretty gross builds.
So you're saying that it's already happened, even without liberal rebuilding rules. And I agree, losing a good GM and creating negative drama is bad for the community.
Andrew Christian wrote:
The moral to my story, is that when you open the door to potential abuse of the available options, one person can create major negative drama in an entire region.
But, as you stated above, the door is already wide open. The player already did.
The restrictive rebuilding rules don't stop it. If anything, they provide a disincentive for Paizo to close the door.
Todd Morgan wrote:
People would abuse the more liberal policy. Liberal policies in the past have had to be re-structured due to abuse in the short amount of time they were open. When a small amount of people abuse the system it ends up hurting everyone.
I would disagree. Currently, if a player feels that the rules aren't making the game more fun for him, he will end up either quitting the campaign, or ignoring the rules.
We already tolerate abuse of the rules: look at the broken characters that some players bring from time to time. As GMs, we're Required to allow them on our tables, even if they trounce encounters.
Yet we're punishing a player who is now stuck with a character that now does not do what it was envisaged to do due to an oversight by Paizo.
I understand that we are not supposed to promote cheating, but we also should try and avoid creating punitive rules that allow players to self-justify it.
Request For Clarification of Rebuild Rules Or Alternatively Further "Grandfathering" After Recent Errata
Mystic Madness wrote:
His stats are also entirely Charisma-focused to facilitate the maximum possible number of channels. He does not even carry a weapon because he has not the strength to wield it.