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

Mistwalker's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,902 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,902 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Congratulations

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
nosig wrote:
the problem is not the creation of the ITS - it is in the maintaining it.
I have yet to face such a problem. YMMV though.

have none of your PCs bought anything sense you created your ITS? or used anything listed on it?

That's what maintaining it is all about. marking out all the wand charges used, marking all Alchemist Fires used with the correct CR number, adding any new upgrades to armor paid for, etc.

I believe that Lormyr was/is saying that they have not had a problem maintaining the ITS.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Congratulations

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Congratulations

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Viskous wrote:

If anyone has prep stuff for curse of the riven sky module, that would be a great help. Running it at the con on Friday, last minute prep for the win...!

PM me!

Also anything that evil monkey uploaded doesn't work at all. I've tried 7 or 9 different documents

PM sent

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Living Monolith prestige class should give you immortality and still allow you to play PFS.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Paz wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
If you slot an Ioun stone in a Wayfinder it loses its normal magical abilities and becomes just a compass.
Could you provide a reference for that?

Here you go:

Seekers of Secrets, p51 wrote:

Wayfinders and Ioun Stones

Within each wayfinder is a fine lattice of wires that serve to channel the power of ioun stones, allowing the owner of a wayfinder to benefit from a stone’s power without the attendant risk of having a valuable item orbiting around her head. In addition, the magic worked into the wayfinder amplifies the power of the ioun stone, usually (about 75% of the time) unlocking new abilities in addition to the stone’s normal power. Unfortunately, the energy required is such that the magical properties of the wayfinder itself are diverted to power the ioun stone, temporarily negating the wayfinder’s normal abilities.

Ah, thanks.

So easy to miss, as is the reference in the Pathfinder Society Primer on page 23 - it is listed in the Resonant Powers section, 1st paragraph.

It seems a little silly - Pathfinder needs a light, pops out the Ioun Stone, cast light, pops Ioun Stone back in - get's out their Torch Ioun Stone and continues to explore.

I can see limiting the non-Cantrip powers of the Wayfinder, but for a single cantrip (or maybe two if Inherited is bought)?

**

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Dragnmoon wrote:

Normally you can only get one Wayfinder enhancement, but inherited allows to get 2. Inherited plus another. Inherited does not give a Wayfinder light plus a level 0 of your choice, it allows you to add another enhancement and keep light. So an inherited Wayfinder with discerning would have light + detect magic.

A normal discerning Wayfinder would only have detect magic, what the inherited allows you to do is keep light as we'll instead of replacing it.

Edit: here is the post about only one enhancement per Wayfinder

I still think that is incorrect but it is what it is.

Wouldn't the new vanity take precedence over the general rule, especially as the new vanity is from 2013 and Mark's statement is from 2011 (specific rule over-rides the general rule)?

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
If you slot an Ioun stone in a Wayfinder it loses its normal magical abilities and becomes just a compass.

Could you provide a reference for that?

I looked over the entries for Wayfinders in the Inner Sea World Guide and Seeker of Secrets, and neither location state that regular Wayfinders become non-magic when an Ioun Stone is inserted.

Some of the more expensive wayfinders, ones with enhanced capabilities and multiple slots have some of those enhanced capabilities suppressed when Ioun Stones are added. But not the regular ones.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I too have always seen the spell being cast throught the wand, and for touch spells, the wand has to touch the target, not the wand wielder's hand.

If Weaponwand spell allows you to activate the wand and have it discharge into the target that the wielder hit with the weapon, wouldn't that also indicate that the wand needs to touch the target?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Why are you suddenly adding some kind of mechanic/penalty for beneficial touch spells?

We don't ask the bard to make a touch attack when they are using their wand of CLW to touch the fighter to heal them (any cure spell). So why add something in for weaponwand spell used with a CLW wand? Doesn't the wording "For the spell’s duration, a character who wields the transmuted weapon is also considered to be wielding the wand as well" mean that the bard would have a 15' reach wand?

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Erane wrote:
I GMed the module Crypt of the Everflame for a group, and according to the Society rulebook this would net players 3 XP and 4 PP. However, after I logged it under sessions on the paizo site it listed "GM 2" under Prestige. I cross-referenced with a friend, who GMed the Free-RPG day module Master of the Fallen Fortress, which should reward 1 XP and 1 PP, but for him it also read "GM 2". Is this a bug? How much PP should I award to my character?

They system is crediting you with an extra "game" in your total number of games run for your GM star calculation.

As modules are usually longer than a single scenario, PFS management set things up for GMs to get an extra game credit for modules.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Totenpfuhl wrote:
Question for you vets: How do you get your badge from volunteering?

Easiest way is to go to the volunteer meeting on Wednesday night. It will be handed out there, and there will be a briefing from PFS staff.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Paulicus wrote:
I thought as much, but I was confused by Alex Greenshields' post on page 1. Though now that I look he's a VC, I mistook his title for 'developer.'

Actually, he is the author of this scenario.

To my knowledge, potions only affect the creature drinking them, regardless of how many creatures could be affected if the spell were cast.

I think that he got it right when he drafted the scenario, but had a mental hiccup when he replied (based on the "I just realized...Duh" wording).

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Paulicus wrote:
I have a question about the Haste potion mentioned on the first page. Is it supposed to work on both the rider and the mount? I thought potions only targeted the imbiber.

It should affect only the mount.

The mount's speed will increase by 30'. I suspect that the speed increase the main reason for doing this, as it will make it challenging for the PCs to catch up to him, and with ride-by-attack, he can use his lance to potentially devastating attacks.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
o take another tack, BigNorseWolf, if you use my interpretation, does most of the issues that you are having with handle animal disappear (or at least lessened to a significant degree)?

No, because you're still making a full round DC 25 handle animal check better than a 10 round DC ~35 wild empathy check

If the animal obeys your down command its functionally going from hostile to at LEAST indifferent, more likely friendly (because its ignoring his friend telling him what to do for you).

For a wild empathy check against a hostile creature is 25 + its cha mod and you need to beat the DC by 5 to move it each additional step, so to get it unfriendly you need 25, to get it indifferent you need a 30, and to get it to be friendly you need a 35.. but you can't move it more than 2 steps , so even that 35 is impossible with a bonafide class feature thats far harder to raise than a skill.

You seem to be giving handle animal more power/function that what I read into the skill. Nowhere does it state that handle animal acts like diplomacy for animals (as it does with wild empathy). Nor does it state that the animal has to be friendly for the animal to obey the order.

Handle animal allows you to give the animal orders that will likely be obeyed - as the animal is used to obeying order (for trained animals) or orders giving in an alpha manner (for both wild and domesticated animals). You aren't making them friends.

They aren't ignoring its owner/friend, it is simply obeying the last order that it received - which can be changed by the owner, perhaps before it has a chance to obey the order from the skill user.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Mist,

you're making my argument but somewhere come out at the other conclusion.

If the animal is not an automaton why is it going to accept commands from people it doesn't know or like, at all? Why is it going to leave the person it (probably) likes in danger because someone told it to go jump down a well?

Mistwalker wrote:
5) Charm Animal will make the animal friendly to the caster, thus the animal will not attack them unless the owner pushes the animal
This isn't a data point its kind of a supposition. There is no "attack creature you're friendly too anyway" trick to push here. If the animal is charmed its not going to attack, at all.

I cleaned up the quotes above to what I think that they were supposed to be - let me know if I got it wrong.

I have always agreed with you that handle animal should not be more powerful than a 3rd level druid spell.

I think that we differ on whether a DC 10 handle animal check will allow for the non-owner to command the animal, and even have it attack the owner.

I view any non-owner trying to command an animal needing to push the animal to get it to do the trick or task, needing a full round DC 25 handle animal check.

If the animal has been charmed, then I can see the DC dropping to a move action DC 10 for most tricks, but would still need to push to get the animal to attack another friendly creature or it's owner.

While there is no "attack creature that you're friendly too anyways" (nor is a go first along the ledge over lava, or use non-lethal damage, or many other activities), I would say that that is covered under pushing an animal, that is "To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that is doesn't know but is physically able to do".

In my interpretation, push is used to get animals to do all kinds of things that are not listed in the rules, as there would not be enough room in the book to cover all of the possible uses of handle animal.

To take another tack, BigNorseWolf, if you use my interpretation, does most of the issues that you are having with handle animal disappear (or at least lessened to a significant degree)?

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:

However, it wouldn't be a DC 10. It would be a push attempt at DC 25.

Now what is the rational for this? The animal probably knows the down trick. You're relying on raw here, so why would up the DC by 15?

A few things:

1) Animals are not automations that will do anything that they are programmed (trick) do. They have some intelligence, likes and dislikes. Handle Animal is not a magic word to overcome all of that.

2) With the attack trick, the animal will attack apparent enemies - which would exclude most party members (so don't abuse party members animals).

3) With the attack trick, the animal will not attack creatures like undead and aberrations. So the owner/handler will need to push them for them to do so (unless the attack trick is taken twice). To me, that indicates that even with the attack trick, there are times when the owner/handler will need to push the animal.

4) A skill check that is easy to pass (take 10 will work unless you have -2 or worse charisma modifier) should not be more powerful than a third level druid only spell.

5) Charm Animal will make the animal friendly to the caster, thus the animal will not attack them unless the owner pushes the animal (a full round action for non-druids and rangers, and a move action for them). I suspect that it will take more than one round for the owner to push the animal to attack a spell created friend (unless the owner passed a spellcraft check and realized what spell was cast on the animal) as they would spend a move action to order the attack, and next round have to take a full round action to push the animal to attack.

There is most of my rational for why I believe that people making handle animal checks to order an opponent's animal requires the animal to be pushed, hence needed a DC 25 handle animal check. And for them, it would be a full round action. And the animal still only executes the order on it's turn - and that order may be overridden by the owner if their turn comes before the animal (and it is a move action for them to order the animal execute a trick).

If I had a character with the handle animal skill that could not contribute to combat on one turn, I would consider using a full round action to order an opponent's animal to flee, especially if fleeing for even one round would put them out of the fight (jumping down a ledge, running out a room and a team mate closes the door, etc..) - not only would it fit better with my world/PFS view (without magic, I have trouble seeing an animal turn on it's owner like that) and likely to have less issues with players and GMs than having arguments about exactly what the skill can do -i.e. if the animal would turn on it's owner.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
FLite wrote:
I don't really see a DC 25 as unachievable in reality. Remember, with take 20, that's a skill bonus of 5. (Using it consistently in a combat round is pretty hard to achieve, especially without the ability to take ten.)
you're talking a dc 10 to make an animal attack its owner if it has the attack trick.

I would allow an NPC or PC to command someone else's animal, if they succeeded on the handle animal check.

However, it wouldn't be a DC 10. It would be a push attempt at DC 25. In most cases I wouldn't allow the command be one to attack an ally of the owner - as you indicated BigNorseWolf, the skill isn't a dominate - but pushing the animal to flee has a good chance of taking them out of the combat.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Erick,

This thread seems to have two elements in it:
1) errata rebuilds
2) full rebuilds at anytime.

1): A decision has to be made on how extensive any rebuild is required based on an errata. It can be challenging to determine where to put that line, as demonstrated in this thread - I put skills points into x skill to be able to get y ability, so I should be able to rebuild that too - basically some will want a free rebuild.

I haven't played with, seen played, or researched the crane style feat chain, so I won't comment on where that point should be. But I suspect that Mike and John are very familiar with the subject and chose what they felt was the most appropriate point.

Presenting a rationale for why the rebuild should be larger, up to and including a free rebuild, has a chance to getting Mike and John to change their mind - but it should be a specific thread on it's own with a subject line that reflects that. This thread has much more going on in it and any arguments presented seem to be falling on the full rebuilds at anytime discussion.

2) One of the aspects that I like about PFS is that choices matter, both short term and long term. Decisions on what gear to buy, when to buy it, what skills and feats to take, etc.. have long term effects on your character.

Full rebuilds at anytime remove that aspect. Your decision on anything doesn't matter - cause you can change it when ever you want. This includes stocking up on expensive consumables, because you will get all of that gold back next session, when you rebuild your PC, even if you take the same build as you mysteriously get the gold back.

For some builds, they are subpar until they hit a specific level - let's take 5 as a nice midterm level. That means that right now, you have to play 12 sessions with a subpar PC, in order to shine when you hit level 5. You have to manage to survive and get there - and I suspect feeling good about your accomplishment. Full rebuilds at any time will take away that consequence.

Also, please note that as of season 5, player actions are having some consequences on the campaign story. When GMs report scenarios, they usually have to indicate PC choices/actions on a few subjects (box A,B,C or D).

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Gimme a break, I've slept since then!

What would you care to have broken?

*Innocent look*

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

One thing that we are doing in Ottawa is to ask for $5 per game day. The money goes into store gift certificates, some for the GMs, and the rest are drawing amongst the players.

This way, the store is guaranteed sales (and I am often drawn into buying more than the value of the gift certificate).

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Like others, I do not have a crane wing dedicated PC. And like others, an example of how this change will require serious rebuild (that is, more than a single feat retraining) would be appreciated to understand where the problem lies.

If the example is compelling enough, there is always a chance (no matter how small) that John and Mike may allow rebuilds for crane wing characters. Without the example, there is likely little to no chance of that happening.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

The focus is needed in the creation of the wand (Core, p 553, Creating Wands, 2nd paragraph).

You would not need the focus when using a cracked purple Ioun stone. The caster would need it when casting the spell into the stone, or if a wand was used, when the wand creator made the wand.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Nebten wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Oh, and the focus for True Strike is, IIRC, typically a marking made on the weapon you are holding, so just needs to be prepared in advance, especially since foci don't get expended.

** spoiler omitted **

A majority of GM's will say you will need to pull the replica out of the spell component pouch, therefore you'll need a free hand.

I don't believe that you have to keep the replica in your spell component pouch.

I have had a character that kept three or four hanging off if various pieces of equipment (necklace is a good spot, but on the sheath is another).

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

You would be violating one of the prime PFS rules, that of "don't be a jerk". There is also a rule that does not allow player vs player fighting.

You are also expected to make characters that will cooperate with fellow Pathfinders, and that the PFS leaders would want (or at least tolerate).

Deliberately making a character that will do things that will cause other PCs to get killed or faile the missing is something that violate the don't be a jerk rule.

The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, including the GM.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Well done.

I am glad that the issue was able to be resolved in a mature and rational way.

**

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

85. If the BBEG has an animal companion, one of it's tricks will be exclusive.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
You're not fathoming the issue. Slavery is a politically inflammatory topic in our society. Why? Because of the racial undertones and the horrible atrocities associated with it. None of this other stuff that is arguably immoral was conducted on a racial basis as was slavery ...here...in the US.

This is an approach that irritates the rest of the world - you are only taking a very narrow US based point of view. To some, that will smack of racism - if you aren't American, you are not important.

Could you point out where anyone else has brought race into this discussion, besides yourself that is?

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
talbanus wrote:
Look, this is a racially charged issue in current day America, where most of PFS takes place. It's all well and good to play the intellectual and talk about how 'all races have been subject to slavery at one time or another' or 'this is Golarion we're talking about', but the fact is our gaming is taking place (often in public places) in a society where this subject makes a significant amount of people uncomfortable.

Now this is a valid argument to make to PFS management to ask that slaves not be legal for PFS PCs.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

I do have a problem with murder. I've already expressed that. But murder doesn't target an ethnic group. Do you comprehend that part of the argument?

Paizo is based in the US. I play the game in the US. Themes that are inappropriate for US consumption have been banned by PFS. Is this something you are confused on?

You are the only one who brought ethnicity into the conversation. You have, on several occasions brought in mwangi. I notice that you haven't mentioned or touched the fact that halflings are often the slave of choice in Cheliax (if memory isn't failing me).

I have also noticed that you have only focused on the kidnap, enslave, sell type of slave. You have avoided all of the other ways people have become slaves (both real world and in game). Is there any particular reason for that?

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Walter Sheppard wrote:

I believe Mistwalker is suggesting that the PC with the slave sell it for 1/2 cost back to the "store," as if it were an old item they no longer wanted, and record that on his ITS.

Then the purchasing PC denote that they purchased a slave at full cost on their ITS, subsequently freeing it. The slave, for flavor, is the one formerly sold by the slaver PC.

The 1/2 cost that is "lost" in this process is due to various legalization fees for this type of transaction, which again is flavor.

Is this correct Mistwalker? I would find no fault with this.

Exactly what I am suggesting.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

@Mistwalker,

I agree in principle that the players should get along. For me, to that end, 'leaving the slave home' for the slaver is the polite thing to do.

I agree that if possible, anyone playing a PC that is objectionable for the other players should do their best to accomodate the table (necromancer vs certain religions debate, slave ownership vs Andoran style response, mature themed PC vs young players, etc). I can see a PC leaving their slave behind at the inn, lodge, etc.. depending on where the adventure takes place, or simply tell the other players that that individual is not a slave, but an indentured servant (or servant) that is being paid back with sarcasm due to their earlier "Yes Master/Mistress comments".

Matthew Morris wrote:
While the idea of buying off the slave is one that makes sense, the rules as they exist hamper that (no cash transactions between characters). Something I wish we could address, w/o jerkish behaviour ("oh, you want me to heal you? pony up" is not acceptable) being loopholed in.

Ah, but the transaction doesn't have to be between the players - slave owning player sells their slave, records it on ITS - Andoran style PC buys a slave, records the transaction on their ITS (and the subsequent release). On paper, the PCs did not exchange gold, but the players at that table have a slightly different interpretation on how it actually happened.

Can you find an error with the above approach that breaks the rules? Incidentally, that is why I put the plug about fees in my first suggestion, so that the letter and spirit of the buying gear rules were respected.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:

So far the only real examples are PCs with a vanity, usually the porter vanity - which could be a servant or a slave (I don't have enough information on trollbill's dying servant example to comment). I don't think that most even stop to think that the porter could be a slave.

@ Matthew, if Slaver Sam brought slaves into Andoran or the River Kingdoms, I can see them being set free, regardless of how Slaver Sam felt (if he wasn't running to avoid a lynch mob) - as a GM, I wouldn't have any problem doing this.

I don't see the need to expend costly resources on fellow PCs who neglect to bring their own (like wands of CLW). However, if I am playing a cleric, that cleric shouldn't be excluding the slave owning PC from their channelling - to me this would be breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule and violating the "cooperation" aspect of the PFS.

If I have a PC that is anti-slavery, I would likely have that PC try and convince the slave owning PC to free their slave, and if not, consider purchasing the slave (I pay full, the other PC get's half of what they paid, the balance goes to pay the processing fee to register the sale) and free the slave in an appropriate place (i.e. in a country where slaves could be freed, and where they have a chance of making a living - as opposed to starving) - putting my PCs gold where their mouth is, that is, suporting their morals and beliefs.

Rather than debate how slavery is viewed on Golarion, I would rather focus on how PCs (and their players) should react, based on their backgrounds, to slaves.

what is this? a clearly reasoned out response that is not likely to upset anyone? am I still on the PFS boards?

sarcasm - really it was just sarcasm!

I try :) (and according to my significant other, I am trying too!)

Working on the "cooperation" part at the moment.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

So far the only real examples are PCs with a vanity, usually the porter vanity - which could be a servant or a slave (I don't have enough information on trollbill's dying servant example to comment). I don't think that most even stop to think that the porter could be a slave.

@ Matthew, if Slaver Sam brought slaves into Andoran or the River Kingdoms, I can see them being set free, regardless of how Slaver Sam felt (if he wasn't running to avoid a lynch mob) - as a GM, I wouldn't have any problem doing this.

I don't see the need to expend costly resources on fellow PCs who neglect to bring their own (like wands of CLW). However, if I am playing a cleric, that cleric shouldn't be excluding the slave owning PC from their channelling - to me this would be breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule and violating the "cooperation" aspect of the PFS.

If I have a PC that is anti-slavery, I would likely have that PC try and convince the slave owning PC to free their slave, and if not, consider purchasing the slave (I pay full, the other PC get's half of what they paid, the balance goes to pay the processing fee to register the sale) and free the slave in an appropriate place (i.e. in a country where slaves could be freed, and where they have a chance of making a living - as opposed to starving) - putting my PCs gold where their mouth is, that is, suporting their morals and beliefs.

Rather than debate how slavery is viewed on Golarion, I would rather focus on how PCs (and their players) should react, based on their backgrounds, to slaves.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?

If it has been seen, how often?
Are the slaves abused?
And are they listed on the PC's ITS?
:)

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

It is totally free.

The chronicle sheet clearly indicates this: "you receive this wayfinder for free".

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Interesting.

Could make things interesting for a few immediate action spells.

Feather Fall is supposed to allow you to cast it as soon as you start to fall - so if it is a trap, or a bridge/ledge suddenly collapsing, technically, you haven't acted yet so are flat-footed, so you can't cast Feather Fall, which would seem to defeat the major goal of the spell.

Feather Fall is even mentioned on page 189, so it looks like you can't even use the specific rule over general rule argument.

I will have to do a bit of research on this, and if no one has asked for a FAQ, start a thread to do so.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
I thought you couldn't take immediate actions if flat footed?

I can find nothing to indicate that.

The Core, page 178, flat-footed doesn't mention that, nor does page 182, immediate action.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
PRD wrote:
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

I said an immediate action can be used in the Surprise Round. If you can act during the Surprise Round, then when it's your turn, you can use an immediate action.

and

The GM can't single out Swift actions as separate from Free actions. If the latter is allowed, so is the former. So the GM has no discretion over Swift actions, only Free actions. If the rules say you can perform a Free action, then, per RAW, the GM cannot prevent a Swift action from occurring, barring something unique.

Well, we both know there are GMs out there who have tried to stop players from taking Swift actions when Free actions were allowed.

Immediate actions can happen out of initiative sequence.

I would argue that some can happen any time, including not acting in surprise round - example: feather fall (the spell would be pretty useless if you couldn't use it instantly).

If a GM can say that certain free actions cannot happen that turn, then the GM can also say that certain swift and immediate actions cannot happen - swift actions take more time that a free action, according to the Core, so if free actions can be limited by the GM, it logically follows that the GM can limit swift actions (Yes, the GM needs a rationale to do so).

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

No, it's not all the same. Losing one's liberties because you violate laws of the state/community is not tantamount to losing your liberty because someone takes it from you. Trying to equate the two is a non-starter.

That's incorrect. Our legal system is based on laws decided by the people. Incarceration is a penalty for crimes that has been instituted by a nation. No private individual can legally incarcerate another individual.

Your attempts to re-characterize imprisonment for crimes as tantamount to slavery are not valid. Just because there are similar elements, i.e. forced to do labor against one's will, does not mean one is the same as the other.

And if the slave is a slave because of crimes committed?

You only seem to be looking at the idea of slaves taken during slaving raids, but ignore all of the other ways people become slaves and how slaves were created around the world and over time.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
FLite wrote:

Sorry. The Janissaries always make me giggle. You know, you would have thought somewhere along the way someone would have had the thought "sure, slave labor is cheap, but maybe staffing our standing army almost entirely with slave labor is a bad idea..."

I mean, they did figure that out, but you would have thought they would have thought of that *before* they did it. Not after the inevitable slave revolt.

Did you notice that they were around for something like 500 years?

That when they were elite military, they didn't revolt?
That when they tried to stop the modernization of the military and revolted, that is when they were disbanded (the fact that they were no longer elite military likely had something to do with them being defeated - along with a hate by the local people).

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Not all slavery is the kind seen and practiced in the US before the US Civil War.

Some slaves were war prisoners: what do you do with the captured enemies? Kill them? Enslave them? Cut off their right hands (no wielding swords) and let them fend for themselves?

Some became slaves due to their own crimes. Prisons can be expensive to run, so do you kill the serious criminals? enslave them?

Some slaves are taken and made into elite military units. The best example that I can come up with are the Janissaries - non-muslims taken as slave when young boys and turned into elite soldiers, who often ended up ruling vast parts of the Ottoman empire. The Janissaries were around for hundreds of years.

Some slaves are able to earn their freedom.

The subject is not as black and white as some would like to believe.

In PFS there are all kinds of slavery, some good, some evil. There can be discussions of all kinds (like having your PC try and convince a slave owning PC to release their slaves), preferrable without anyone getting to worked up over an RPG game.

Edit: Grammar

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

A lot of us record pretty much everything.

Personally, I record items over 1 gp, and group the rest into one entry (misc adventuring gear 12.2 gp). This makes my accounting easier.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I don't think that you have to justify having a town guard strong enough to take out the PCs - if the town guard was over matched, don't you think that adventuring NPCs that lived there, were passing through or wanting something from someone in town, would not jump in and help the town guard?

How many adventures start off pretty much exactly like that?

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

But could an alchemist with a vestigial arm do it, as he would have three arms holding it?

*ducks behind some cover*

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

While a GM has discretion on what may be a Free action. Its important to point out that the GM does not have discretion to disallow what is by RAW a Swift action from occurring where a Free action could occur.

I found the definition using the Search box on the PRD website.

Swift Action

Swift actions take a bit more time than free actions. And your quoted text from the PRD says that if a free action could take place, then a swift action could. However, if the GM states that that free action cannot occur, then neither can the swift action. So, by my reading, by RAW, a GM can say that a swift action cannot be taken.

I find it amusing that were are arguing/discussing the rules about a monster's actions, giving it more power/ability/etc.. in the same manner that the discussions usually happen about PCs.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
RtrnofdMax wrote:

I will think about the snake action. It really doesn't define it so I would say it's up to me whether it is simply dropped or thrown. I do see the argument for it taking an action.

The second surge would be used to drag a PC/food overboard with the first used as part of the ambush. I think those are appropriate uses of the surge. The third would be held in reserve for escape.

There are no penalties to perception for looking out of water, despite what may happen in the real world. The Drake is also practiced at stalking prey and is quite intelligent. I see no reason why the drake couldn't pace the ship as the trudges upriver, picking out the easiest target.

As I reflect, even if combat turns out the way I detailed it before, I am not sure that 2d6 and 1d3 damage is even going to drop a wizard if I roll poorly. We will see.

While you are contemplating the snake, think that the drake has to carry it in it's mouth. So, it will likely be holding it in such a way that the snake cannot bite it (and inject it with poison). If the drake just opens it's jaws to free action drop the snake, what are the chances that the snake will bite the drake? Bite a creature that snatched it and carried it off? Or would the drake want to make sure that it put enough force into spitting out the snake to have it be flung away fast enough so that it can't get a poisoned bite attack in, and land in a square that will make it more challenging for the other PCs to come to the rescue of the drake's chosen PC?

I wasn't suggesting that the drake wouldn't pace the ship for a bit (gives the PCs more chances for perception checks), but this isn't a small boat, the deck is well above the water.

The ship is 75' long, with multiple cabins below deck and cargo space, and is 15' wide. I would put the deck 5' above the water for game movement purposes, and 10' for the fore and quarter decks.

The same perception modifiers should apply to both the drake and the PCs on deck. The drake shouldn't get a +8 cover bonus if it is watching the ship - swimming from it's lair and surging up from underneath, sure, but not if it is casing the ship. And it shouldn't be able to see the center part of the deck, due to the high difference.

As for damage, there is a good chance that you will be taking down a 1st level spellcaster with just the two attacks, never mind the additional 2d6 damage from the spit, which would take down most fighters as well.

It can feel like GM fiat killed the character, as they had no chance of seeing it, will not likely be able to move before the drake in the regular round (drake has an init of +9), so will take 13 points of damage on average (2d6 spit, 1d3+1 tail and an additional 1d4 acid) before they can move, and likely also entangled in the caustic mucus (and will continue taking an additional 1d4 damage per round until they make their save or die).

That has a good chance of being perceived as GM fiat - the GM pointed their finger at a PC (who hadn't done anything wrong) and says you take 13 points of damage, does that kill you? No, well the drake grabs you with its jaws and drags you underwater, start making your drowning checks along with those acid saves.

Yes, you can definitely run things that way.

Does it make the game more enjoyable for the players? Will new players want to come back if that is their character that died? Will it cause players to start doing ridiculous things to protect themselves?

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


Please note that according to the CORE, p 178, surprise round, creatures can only take a move action or a standard action, and free actions. You cannot take swift actions - so no speed surge in the surprise round.

That is incorrect. The PRD states this:

Quote:

Swift Actions

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

In addition, one can perform an Immediate action even when it's not your turn, so that can absolutely happen during the surprise round for a character acting in that round.

I don't always do it, but it's really important to get in the habit of verifying rules before trying to make definitive statements about them.

I do, and did this time as well.

Both the PRD and page 182 of the CORE state wrote:
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
CORE p182 and PRD: Free actions wrote:
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

I highlighted what I consider an important fact about free actions.

However, based on your comments, I did a bit more research and found:

CORE p182 and PRD: Restricted Activity wrote:
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).

I will now happily apply swift actions to the surprise round, both as GM and player.

Out of curiosity, where did your quote of the PRD come from? Mine are from the "How combat works" page.

**

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I would disagree.

The tactics state that the river drake flings the snake on to the deck - sounds more like a standard action to me, not a free action.

I also wouldn't think that the drake would use two of it's three speed surges in a single fight like that. I would think that the drake would keep them in reserve, in case it needs to get away. It has hunted boats before and fought other creatures, so it should know that there may be mages or other powerful creatures around that it would need to run from.

Please note that according to the CORE, p 178, surprise round, creatures can only take a move action or a standard action, and free actions. You cannot take swift actions - so no speed surge in the surprise round.

Also, the GM decides where the drake appears along the boat - and the tactics says that it attacks the nearest PC - so the GM could have the drake attack the unarmored mage, or the armored fighter. You also have to remember that the drake doesn't know what is on the ship, nor where all the living creatures on at are - it was underwater.

So, the way I read the tactics, and have used as well, is:
Surprise round: Drake pops up alongside the ship (one option is to randomly roll where).
1st round: Drake flings the snake onto the deck of the ship, likely towards a group that is not the nearest PC, and moves next to the nearest PC, if not already next to the PC.
2nd round: full attack the PC. Repeat if necessary.
round after PC dropped: spit at anyone getting around the snake (likely to be the melee folks who can take a hit), pick up the downed PC.
next round: full withdraw with it's meal.

That sequence appears to be more in line with the tactics, will provide a challenge to the PCs, and will not provide an instant kill to a 1st or 2nd level character.

1 to 50 of 1,902 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.