|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I think this is a good compromise between the original language of star replays recharging every year (that never actually happened) and the boon existing but being hard to come by for many GMs. A definite step forward in further rewarding GMs for doing what they do without opening up replay too far.
Yes, we need more Blakros museum scenarios. I want to see what even more freakishly weird stuff is hidden away in there. Open a closet and find a thousand year old half-mad ghoul? Of course.
What I did with my stalker vigilante is have the vigilante identity be the pathfinder and the social identity is for roleplay/flavor. Most scenarios the social identity never comes into play. I also make sure that they are strictly separated - even the PFS team he works with doesn't get to know who his social identity is. He has a couple ranger levels and I took the falconer archetype. So when he is going to use his social identity he has his owl hang out with the party. If they need him they can send the owl to find him since it of course knows both identities.
I should add that much like your idea Genuine, my vigilante is a murder hobo. The Bloody Maw has been "touched" by Groetus. His social identity is a beggar. So he quite literally is a homeless person who uses the society as a means to travel around and do his part in sowing chaos and tearing down civilization.
Season 0: Black Waters
Season 1: The Pallid Plague
Season 2: Below the Silver Tarn, with You Only Die Twice as runner up
Season 3: Red Harvest for high tier, God's Market Gamble for low tier
Season 4: The Waking Rune - I have only run this, not played it and it is still one of my favorites.
You get to fight a runelord and the herald of a god in the same scenario!
Season 5: Library of the Lion
Season 6: The Slave Master's Mirror
Season 7: School of Spirits
Special: Blood Under Absalom
Exclusive: Bonekeep 1
I don't think repeat GM credit is necessary, but if it was implemented I think this would be a decent way to do it. Any GM credit after the first does not grant access to anything, boons or items, but only provides XP, PP, and GP.
As a GM I have allowed the PCs to borrow Aspis badges from a VC when appropriate. I have also done the same as a player. Is this acceptable or should it not be allowed unless explicitly provided for in the scenario?
When this is clarified I think it should go in the direction of having the held chronicles applied, even if the character is then out of tier.
With this option, I don't see any way to "game the system." It is more flexible and forgiving for those who don't carefully keep track of their held credit. This is quite possible for someone playing pregens enough to trigger such a scenario.
By restricting it, you can end up causing players to lose held credit which would only serve to disenfranchise players. When that player is already someone playing a pregen, it is quite possible they are already on the edge of fully participating in PFS.
Given that there are two options where one is more player friendly without being harmful to the player or campaign, then that is the one that should become the rules.
Someone in my lodge write notes on the back of his previous chronicle sheet.
I have started doing this lately, and I think it works pretty well. Previously I would keep separate notes sometimes, or I would write my notes in the blank space on my character sheet (so would be discarded eventually).
What I would like to see is having the product description for the scenario, the summary or blurb, on the chronicle sheet. After playing lots of scenarios the name alone is often not enough for me to remember what it was about.
1) Read through the PDF electronically highlighting skill checks, stuff I think I'll need to quickly find while running, etc. as I go through. I don't pay to close attention to combats on the first pass, only the morale sections to know whether they start out actively attacking or try to talk to the party.
2) Take a mental break (a day or two if I have the time).
3) Study the combats, looking up any mechanics I don't understand.
4) Print the scenario, any bestiary pages not included in the scenario, maps, and chronicles.
5) Pick out minis for the NPCs and monsters.
7) Realize how many things I screwed up while driving home.
Edit: Missed one. 2.5) Read the GM thread on the forums. I only do this around half the time, usually when a scenario seem particularly tricky.
Buba Casanunda wrote:
Then there's the jingasa of the fortunate soldier where you can use an immediate action after a critical hit is confirmed to negate it.
Getting back to spells there is windy escape as well.
Immediate actions are weird.
If you wear (or can wear) armor, then the determination armor special quality may be of interest. It is cheaper than the greater talisman and has the same effect.
Pirate Rob wrote:
This is a good point. It is enough to push me from being in favor of some option of replacement to thinking it's not worth the complexity.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Except that you're straw-manning like crazy. The suggestion isn't to force players to pay for consumables on them, especially if OOC they're against it. It's to ALLOW them to pay for consumables used on them.
No one is talking about mandatory restitutions.
You are wrong. Very early in the thread the idea of mandatory reimbursement was put forward.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Although, personally I'd be in favor of mandatory reimbursement. . .
There are also several others who have said they see no issue with it being an expectation to reimburse if it were allowed. Having it as a basic expectation is pretty much mandatory if you want to keep gaming with the same people.
I don't see how this is at all contrived. The player using the scroll may have done so with only the best intentions. That doesn't change the fact they would effectively be spending the other player's gold.
The problem I have with mandatory reimbursement is you can effectively tax other players. Someone goes unconscious. Use a heal scroll (instead of simply stabilizing them). The target has to pay for it even though they had no choice in whether it was used on them.
This was the most enjoyable convention experience I have had in several years. This is mostly due to it having such a relaxed atmosphere. Even running the Saturday special was fun without being stressful. To me GMing a multi-table special without feeling stressed during it is about the best compliment I can give to the organizers.
Like others in this thread I can see both sides.
When I played Eyes of the Ten there were, to the best of my recollection, at least 2 or 3 scrolls of heal and a breath of life used on my PC. I would like to have had the option to reimburse the other PCs for it. As it is I could only keep taking the hits for them.
At the same time I am concerned this would turn from an option to a de facto requirement.
On the whole I am in favor, possibly with some restrictions. Those restrictions may just be firm language regarditg the optional nature of it.
If an alternative may be on the table, then there's the double walking stick katana.
To expand on this example, the +1 mithral agile breastplate is always available, per the above. Making that same armor +2 mithral agile breastplate then does have fame requirements because a +2 enhancement is not always available. For that you calculate the total price of the item, 400 gp (agile breastplate) + 4,000 gp (mithral) + 4,000 gp (+2 enhancement) = 8,400 gp, thus requiring 27 fame.
Barton "Bart" Oliver wrote:
And with the potion I can still speak, have opposable thumbs, can use my +X weapon, can upgrade my ring of prot., am not forced to remain tiny, etc.
James Risner wrote:
From the fact that you don't think it's assumed you can have an hour per level buff up when combat starts, then surely you can't assume that the 10 minute effect of the ring is already active. So the PC must be using a standard action on the first round of combat to activate the ring. So I fail to see how this is so much different than a small sized PC keeping a potion of reduce person in hand and drinking it in the first round. How is this ring so different that it needs to be banned? You can buy a ring of protection and 40 potions for the price of the ring.
I think what Terminalmancer means is that if you had an idea of what creatures were CR 5+, 10+, 15+, then you would have an idea of what creatures you could take 10 to reliably identify. Not a matter of whether you can take 10.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I think this is a case where instead of banning the item because a few people use it in extreme ways, you can just tell the player "you won pathfinder, good job. Please stop making the game un-fun for everyone else at the table." I don't see how this build would be hugely different just drinking potions of reduce person.
8 × none
Martin Weil wrote:
That is good to know. I guess I just find it distasteful that a Paizo developer admits that something should be fixed (a defect in the product), but the only way to actually use that fix in the Paizo campaign (PFS) is to purchase an additional book to fix the first book.
It would be nice if the PFS FAQ entry more clearly defined what is an official errata.
Edit: It occurs to me I may be misreading the PFS FAQ entry as "official blog post FAQ's or official Errata updates" instead of "official blog post FAQ's or official blog post Errata updates." The latter is much narrower in scope, and so it would not apply to general messageboard posts.
On the topic of my dhampir racial variant question.
First off, I had no idea the variants were even republished as I do not own Inner Sea Races. And which way this goes doesn't matter to me since I can use a fitting racial variant either way. I would just like to be certain what the rules are before I bring the character to a game.
More generally though, to the best of my knowledge Paizo doesn't publish errata for the Player Companion line of books in a formal way (only the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line gets this treatment I think). So if a Paizo developer explicitly providing an "official reply" to "use the following errata" is not sufficient, then it is impossible for a Paizo developer to correct issues in the vast majority of the books they publish in a PFS-legal way while still following their own policies, apart from bugging John and Tonya to fix it for PFS specifically.
Back to this case, I posted to this thread to hopefully have an entry added to the campaign clarifications document or additional resources to clarify whether players should use the errata or not when Blood of the Night is the source for the racial variant.
I want to confirm whether some errata to variant dhampir from Blood of the Night should be used for PFS.
PFS FAQ wrote:
Forum thread wrote:
Given that this is an "official reply" to "use the following errata" I assume this should be used for PFS dhampirs but want to confirm before I go ahead and play a dhampir with one or the other affected variant.
Sock it to 'em.
someone had to
Disarm can end up being a combat-ending action, in challenge if not actually causing initiative to stop. There aren't many enemies that have backup weapons, so it's a save or suck with no limit to the number of attempts (full attack disarms).
For that reason I would recommend using it only as a secondary combat ability, not something you do every combat (or even every scenario). Perhaps taking just improved disarm and forgoing other abilities and feats that make it more powerful.
My chief concern with the reworking of the vigilante class is that for characters who don't want to go down the renown path, there is little real choice in social talents. In particular for PFS where an area of renown will be difficult to maintain. Here is my detailed take on the non-renown dependent social talents, from the perspective of playing a vigilante as a PC in PFS.
Case the Joint (1) - Very situational, especially in PFS. You don't often have time to split from the party (to avoid them knowing both identities) and spend an hour investigating after you figure out where the objective is. I've only attempted something like this once so far (without the talent), and even though it proved useful, I still felt like I was somewhat detracting from the overall fun of the table due to going off to do my own thing while the rest of the party stuck together.
In summary, for the 11 levels of normal PFS play a full-classed Vigilante will end up with 6 social talents. However, within those levels there are only 8 PFS legal social talents forgoing the renown chain, with several only useful on rare occasions. I think this will lead to most PFS Vigilantes having a very large overlap in social talents, which is a disappointment. I think this illustrates a gap. Maybe Inner Sea Intrigue will be able to fill this.
My biggest issue with renown, PFS or not, is that it assumes you want both of your identities to be famous: "The vigilante becomes known for deeds and abilities regardless of his current identity." Several of the other renown-based talents emphasize the social identity as a well known person even more. This immediately makes it unsuitable for characters who want their social identity to be an unremarkable, everyday person. The best cover identity is a person that no one gives a second thought to, not a famous figure, as that just invites scrutiny.
I feel like "really has heart set on class X" is the one I'm having the most trouble with. We have a player who decided to model his PC on the ninja pregen because he really wanted to play a ninja. He took the character to level six before anyone pointed out to him that pregens aren't meant to be a guideline for character creation. I feel bad that the error managed to slip by us for that long but sometimes things happen. ...
I don't think this is all that bad. I would assume that this player had a lot of fun doing "ninja stuff." That they were enjoying it is the most important, regardless of character optimization.
Heck, some of the most fun I've had is when my character was completely ill-matched for the scenario.
If they have reached level 6, then I think the player should have enough experience with the game to to lead into a good conversation about character effectiveness. A first character doesn't need to be optimized until level 12. If it gets the player engaged and progressively learning more about the game, then it has gone right. At that point you can guide them to make character progression decisions that ensure the character remains fun, even if it isn't always particularly effective.
I have had two characters benefit from such boons. The first took the rock fully aware of what it meant. He wanted the power.
The other ate the cookie without realizing. But given it's effect... well he didn't care so much afterwards. As I understood it the effect was immediate, so that's who he was, why would you ever want to change who you are (a gnome)?
Given that, I have enjoyed seeing these, quite rarely and unexpectedly. More is good, so long as it really fits the story.
Is there somewhere in the rules you can point me to that specifies that initial save?
That is how I always have played, but was rereading some of the CRB and did not see it as an actual rule.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Kahel, how would pre-filling in the Chronicle number work, if the player plays some adventures at slow progression, or if the character has some bad luck and ends an adventure or two with no experience points?
The way I handle this is that I leave the sheet # for any to-be-applied chronicles empty. I do fill in the starting XP in pencil though to remind myself when to apply it. The pencil is in case of modules or slow track. It helps that I order my chronicles with the most XP on top, so before I can apply a newly earned chronicle sheet I have to flip past the unapplied ones which prevents me from accidentally skipping one that is waiting and should have been applied already.
As far as applying so many pregen credits to a character that they are no longer in tier for the scenarios to be applied regularly (without an exception), I would encourage the player to consider speaking with their local venture officer to have some of those reassigned to a different character number. It is quite unlikely they would do this on purpose to get a higher level character since pregens are usually played by new players (even many times to avoid the complexity or perceived responsibility in maintaining their own character). I would consider this a courtesy to someone who likely just doesn't know the organized play rules.
Given that they then have plenty of XP stacked up my preferred solution would be to sit with them and ask, of those pregens you played, which was your favorite? Now, let's pull that character sheet up and what was the most fun about them? What was the least fun? Okay - we can actually build you your very own character emphasizing what you like and getting rid of what you didn't like - tailoring it to you. Now you always have the option to play a character you know you will enjoy - including adding a unique personality of your own. Of course you can always still play a pregen if that's what you want, this is just one more character you get to choose from.
I want to clarify exactly when a character gets a saving throw against a spell and the effect of that saving throw. This is for spells that don't have "Saving Throw negates" in the spell description. So for a spell such as Trial of Fire and Acid that specifies when the target gets a save, assuming the spellcasting is successful (all concentration checks made, etc.), does the target get an immediate saving throw to avoid the entire effects of the spell plus a save each round OR is the target affected without making any saving throw, and then makes the save per round to halve the damage for just that round?
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
If your GM is picking so many nits that they are paying attention to the amount of material spell components you use that would be contained in a spell component pouch, then I say it's time to have a conversation with the GM concerning Pathfinder as a game. Games should be fun. There are other games for those who want to play spreadsheet wars - Pathfinder is not one of those. It is a game for being awesome. Failing that, perhaps it's time for a new GM.
John Theodoropoulos wrote:
I have an idea I'm not sure is PFS legal with the crafting restrictions. I play a Gunslinger with ranks in craft Alchemy and Profession: Sapper. My thought, if I carry kegs of black powder, bullets, pellets, caltrops and Keros oil, can I make a craft/profession check to combine the items into a barrel with a simple fuse for a bomb?
The simplest way to do so that avoids table variation is to take one level of alchemist and use craft (alchemy) to make PFS-legal alchemical weapons.
From there it sounds like fuse grenades or the related pellet grenades are what you are looking for. These are available in Ultimate Equipment.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
This is incorrect. Alchemists can craft alchemical items in PFS per the normal crafting rules. It does not replace the day job check.
Underwater Demolition is an alchemist discovery on page 191 of the Advanced Race Guide, along with two other discoveries. However, it is unclear whether these discoveries can be taken by non-grippli characters in PFS.
From the additional resources page:
These discoveries are certainly legal per the grippli entry as quoted above, and since they are not specifically restricted to just gripplis by the overall note at the top of the ARG entry I would assume they are legal for any alchemist. However, the specific mention of discoveries on page 44, and not those on page 191, makes me question this.
So, are the alchemist discoveries on page 191 legal for all alchemists?