Mystic Lemur's page

Bestiary 1 has some good information about them -- check out the Universal Monster Rules and monster feats sections.

None of which are legal in PFS, which is the section this was originally posted in. If this really isn't a PFS question then please disregard.

Over a decade later, Sunless Citadel is still one of my favorite 1st level adventures. Having Ashardalon be a servant of Wrath works perfectly, and having his temple close by complements the ruins under Sandpoint. It seems like you already have some great ideas for how to weave him into the story, so all I can add is my encouragement that your players will love it.

Re: Detect Evil

I'm not crazy! I have it here somewhere... No, the letter really was from Baron Jacquo!

I'm still unclear as to why the scenarios have to be retired at all. Sure "everyone" has played them now, but anything they are replaced with will have the same problem. Sure some of the factions/faction leaders will change. That hasn't stopped me from enjoying Season 0-2 scenarios, so why would it make a difference with First Steps?

And of all the scenarios, why is In Service to Lore the one sticking around the longest? It seems the least able to be "adapted" to the faction changes, so wouldn't it be the first pick to retire?

I don't know the answer, because I have always paid for them (and my backups) out of my gold. I'm sure someone who knows the answer will be along in a reasonable amount of time to help you.

Whatever my character is best at, I want to be as good as I can reasonably be. The "reasonable" comes in where I try to build my characters to be able to contribute to any situation. I don't expect my Paladin to dominate ranged combat, for instance, but I will figure out my best ranged option and be prepared to use it when needed. I'm always prepared to fight swarms, but I'm not prepared to fight them single-handed if no one else in the group brought AoE and/or bludgeoning weapons.

On a related note, does Rage prevent a Barbarian from choosing to take the -4 penalty to deal non-lethal damage? What about while using Power Attack (not just for Barbs)? Does the answer change if he has the Bludgeoner feat?

No one ever seems to be all that concerned when the Neutral characters consistently do Good acts or the Chaotic characters thoroughly obey the law or sign-on to a moral code.

Is that what you want? Stricter enforcement of all alignments? "Evil" actions are more closely monitored because they are the ones most likely to prove disruptive to the game, both in and out of character. If you're the GM and you want to "warn" a monk because he's acting too Chaotic, then go for it.

Since this topic has been raised, I have a few questions that tie directly into some discussions John and I have been having here in the office.

What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players or those between subtiers generally want to play up? What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?

In my regular group, it's a pretty even split between "Better Challenge" and "More Money". I'm looking to run more season 3-4 scenarios soon, though. We'll see which side wins out. ;)

I've slaughtered city guards before while worshiping Abadar. And occasionally I get stuff off my chronicle sheet. But not really.

What do the spoilers do?

As a non-evil character, "slaughter" is not a word you want describing your interactions with the city guard. Doubly so for a follower of Abadar. Your GM was probably right to mark your chronicle, but apparently didn't get the point across as to why they did.

100% Incorrect. if the coup the grace was committed on an innocent and unoffending person, then the act in and of itself is an evil, very very evil.

in this particular case due to the circumstances that the initial act of killing could be justified is the only reason that this case of a coup de grace is not inherently evil.

Coup de grace= killing. There are times when an act of killing will always be evil, therefore it makes no sense to say that a Coup De grace will be the same as a climb check.

A coup de grace is a combat action. Perhaps comparing it to a Climb check is too much of a stretch, but it is certainly no more inherently evil than a Full Attack action. If you argue that the intent or circumstances behind an act are what make the act evil, then you are agreeing with me. Killing a helpless opponent is not inherently evil. In a vacuum, killing an innocent in their sleep is evil but finishing off an unconscious combatant is a neutral act. If you have orders to take them alive it is also a chaotic act, but still not evil.

One of the problems with arguing alignment is people who forget that Neutral is an alignment, and that acts can be Neutral. Most actions taken by anyone ever are Neutral. Throw in some Law/Chaos confusion on top, and it's no wonder nobody can agree.

The only thing I am saying is that in this example, the archer's target does have cover.

Except that it doesn't. Parallel/tangent lines do not "pass through" each other. Move the target (B) one square to the right and there's no doubt that B doesn't have cover, but then we get to argue whether F would provide cover to A (he would). It doesn't "feel" right, but it is.

I'm in the camp of "Point it out to me right then". I'd rather know now than have to go back and look it up later. The other day we had to look something up about the Alchemist. I don't remember what it was, but while we were looking we noticed that you get to make a save for half damage against Bomb splash damage.

No one can know all the rules, there are just too many. I'd rather be corrected than help spread misinformation.

If it wasn't Evil to hack them to death with an axe in a bloody and wanton display of carnage involving much pain, suffering, and splatterings of gore while they were walking about then it's similarly not Evil to give them a quick and relaitively painless end while they are napping.

Apples and Oranges. As much as the OP wants to make that the comparison, it isn't. The real comparison is between a quick, relatively painless death at the hands of one party member, or the quick, relatively painless sacrifice of a soul to an Evil deity at the hands of another. One is clearly Evil, the other isn't.

A coup de grace is no more inherently evil than a climb check.

I may have to "retire" my Pal3/Sor2 before he gets his first level of Dragon Disciple. Every time I play him (he's mostly GM Credit) it's a near-death experience. I don't know if that's bad luck (nearly dying) or good (always making it through) but I'm starting to get nervous. :D

If it's not, then it shouldn't be allowed for replay unless a note is made somewhere (such as here).

I'm not clear what you mean by this. What leads you to believe that MotFF cannot be replayed for credit?

Thanks, Rob. That's interesting, and good to know. So much for my funding grant. :D

The paladin's code is more stringent than a cleric's alignment restriction.

I don't remember seeing that in the rules. There is such a thing as a ex-cleric as well, and they pay the same increased cost for atonement spells as paladins when they fall. (I'm looking at you, Lawful-Neutral cleric of Asmodeus. You've been acting awful Chaotic lately...)

That's alright. I need to apologize to Andrew anyway. The things he has said about HeroLab and d20pfsrd are probably not meant the way I take them. Benefit of the doubt, and so forth. I probably shouldn't come on the boards when I'm having trouble sleeping. ;)

And I haven't noticed any recent change in quality with d20pfsrd. I'll be more careful going forward, however. I like (liked?) the fact that they incorporate errata, FAQ, and designer clarification in the information, but if they're just changing things willy nilly, then I'll have to stop using them as a reference.

Reskinning is not allowed. If the trait says "this was your life" then it was. Research shows that quite a few Pathfinders were bullied as children, making them very Reactionary. Someone should do a study...

More telling is in social situations. Guns should get a bonus to conceal or something for trying to get them in to places weapons aren't allowed - because people don't recognize them as weapons! If they've never seen one before, they're not going to automatically assume the tube you've got is a weapon. (They might think its a wand?)

I disagree. Guns, even if you have no idea what they do or how they work, are very obviously weapons. As you mentioned, they tend to look like crossbows that are missing a few pieces, and since crossbows are simple weapons most bad guys are going to be familiar with them.

Also, if I'm the type to make you check your weapons at the door, do you think I'm going to let someone walk in with a wand or spell staff? Hardly. :P

Wraith235 wrote:

I'm hoping that's the case ...but as I said atm I only have the srd to go off of

Please don't use the d20PFSRD as your source.

I don't know why you have such a hate-on for d20pfsrd.com and HeroLab, but you're being very hostile to two very useful player resources. d20pfsrd.com is, usually, at least as accurate as the official PRD and there is nothing verboten about consulting it away from the table for players or judges. HeroLab is, as well, an invaluable resource from both the player and judge perspective, and is not nearly as fraught with errors as you seem to want to believe.

As long as you own the additional resource, you are PFS legal. As long as you use common sense, HeroLab and the PRDs are extremely useful (just not as a rules source). I'm asking you to please stop hating on both products.

Assuming teleportation looks anything like invisibility, assuming they've never seen teleportation or invisibility before, etc.

Invisibility is also more common, and they have nothing to really lose by striking in the square you were in.

Besides, isn't striking the space where your opponent just vanished practically a trope? Don't forget the Big NOOOOOOOOOO! when you miss. :)

Dylos wrote:

For the record, Musket Master has almost the exact same text for Musket Training with the following line at the end: "This replaces firearm training 1, 2, 3, and 4." Note that there's actually no ability called firearm training, so shouldn't it be compatible with mysterious stranger to? Obviously they meant Gun training, but they said firearm training, so by RAW...

Ultimate combat is riddled with errors, but it's obvious that the Musket version replaces Gun Training, so the Pistol version should as well.

This. Precedent is huge when looking at how to adjudicate something like this. What do all similar situations do? How are all similar circumstances handled? How is all similar language written?

Based on Precedent, Pistol Training replaces Gun Training.

The "Common Sense" you want us to rely on would say that one obviously wrong word in a sentence probably means another. "Common Sense" does not stretch far enough to add a sentence where it doesn't otherwise exist, even if you "know" in your heart it should be there.

Would I ever combine the archetypes? Not likely. Why? I don't play them. I think the whole class is Gouda.

Check out Mark's comments regarding spiked armour and a two-handed reach weapon. A bow is two-handed to wield, so I believe my ruling to be valid.

EDIT: Linky.

Thankfully, in the post about 10 down from that one, he says it's just his opinion and doesn't apply unless/until the FAQ, the CRB, or the PFS Guide are updated.

I'm sure if it were meant to apply to all weapons, rather than just armor spikes and reach weapons, an official ruling would have been made by now.

Don't get a Str +3 composite bow if your character only has a 14 Str. You'll take a -2 to Attack Rolls for not meeting the Str requirement of the weapon.

So ever so slightly penalized.

If those two arrows kept you alive, then I daresay they were worth the silver. At least you weren't a gunslinger, then you might be down as much as 10 gold pieces!

[/snark]

I've seen a lot of "Let's look a gift horse in the mouth!" threads lately. Not saying yours was meant as one, but they tend to blur together...

That's a great article for demonstrating power creep. I remember when players thought "a 15 is pretty good" and now it's "ZOMG! MUST have a 20!" I still like to think of 18 as exceptional when I build characters, something rare that only a few people (even heroes) would have.

Spoiler:

Which is the problem I am having, due to a required rebuild of my Dhampir PC, once he gets played, he is locked in, and with no experience playing him at 1st level as what he will be from now on. Former Undead Lord Cleric, with 3 XP.

I don't care if people don't like the rule. What matters is that those who do not need to retrain their characters should not be made to feel like they are bad people for using that option so that they can stand on a level playing field.

I agree that people should not be made to feel bad for using a legal option. I'm on your side about that, remember? You're the one who thought I was going too far by suggesting those GMs making players feel bad be censured for overstepping their position.

Eliminating any doubt from the minds of first time players that they can recoup the cost of their equipment, imo, is a big deal. If even one person takes advantage of this where they would not have previously, imo, it's worth it.

That's not what the retrain rules were meant for. Being able to "sell back" your equipment is a side effect of the retrain, not the point of the retrain itself. If you feel that selling back equipment for full value is necessary for other players to "keep up" with players who retrain their characters, then that's the issue you need to raise.

And Mystic, there is no "vehemence" on my part you basically rolled a 0 on your forum Sense Motive check. But thanks for your judgmental attitude as it proved my point.

Perhaps I did misunderstand you. If so, I apologize. As for my "judgmental attitude"... Glad I could help?

What are people like Mystic Lemur going to say?

If you would read the entirety of my post, you would see that, in my opinion, my opinion doesn't matter. I don't try to influence my players one way or another about the retrain options, I just remind them that they have the option.

In fact, when it comes to the GMs discouraging players from retraining (even just to sell gear), I'm on your side. I just don't feel like the benefit an IC justification for an OOC option is worth the effort. I disagree that an IC justification will have your desired effect.

I don't see how any of that deserves your vehemence. If this is how you react to me, I'd hate to see how you react to someone who actually opposes you on something.

I'm afraid you're not likely to get specific clarification on what is and isn't "PvP" (That's kinda like asking for clarification on what they mean by "jerk" in "Don't be a jerk"). You'll have to rely on that nebulous thing called "common sense" that seems so rare these days.

Mystic Lemur wrote:

More rules are never better. Why needlessly complicate something that works just fine the way it is? The benefit of your proposed change is far outweighed by the hassle.

The "retrain" rule was just released with the 4.2 guide, like six months ago. I'm here giving feedback that it doesn't "work just fine the way it is." The way it's been introduced, some GM's think it's unethical to use it to just swap out gear.

In my opinion, eliminating the likelihood anyone will question whether a retrain can be used to just swap gear at full price is probably worth it. Allowing players to feel an untainted sense of continuity with their characters..."priceless."

First of all, this post is a living example of my statement "Adding more rules is never better." Granted, I love the new retrain option, especially for new players. But look how much more complicated things are now. How often we get posts asking questions about a rule (retraining) that didn't exist before.

As to your second point, retraining just to change your gear, and doing so only to save money, is against the spirit of the retrain rules. You are not on the moral high ground here, so don't even try that angle. But, as I said before and as others have said, the amount of gold you save by gaming the system like that is miniscule over the long term of the game. And, ethical or not, it is part of the rules in place. Making another rule to clarify the new rule in certain situations is adding needless complexity. Requiring an IC justification for something that happens completely out of character is adding needless complexity.

To put it simply, putting more words in the PFS Guide to Organized Play or the FAQ is bad. More words means more things that are different from Core, more things players and GMs have to remember, and more things that have to be explained to people that don't understand. More "hassle".

No clarification is needed, because nothing in the retrain rules specify that you can't. In fact, several times the campaign leadership has stated exactly that you are allowed to sell your gear for full price as part of the retrain. Adding an IC justification to the guide will not silence those who disagree.

Part of what makes RPG's enjoyable is the story people create with their characters. Without an IC way to sell gear back at full price below 2nd level, even I can concede a sense of discontinuity creeps in.

No one is stopping you from coming up with an IC justification for your own retrain. I have a Magus that I'm retraining as a Lore Warden Fighter. OOC, the magus is more complicated than I'm willing to fiddle with. I didn't have fun playing her, but I think that I will as a Lore Warden. IC, I'm justifying it as she lost her spellbook and took it as a sign from Sarenrae to focus on knowledge of a more mundane sort.

Whatever IC reason you come up with for your characters is fine. Imposing an IC reason on others is not.

Mystic Lemur wrote:

If there are GMs that are "discouraging" legal character options they need to be reported to the event coordinator, or a Venture officer.

I think reporting GM's for voicing an opinion is probably taking it too far.

I'm sorry. You were the one that insinuated they were doing more than that. You made it seem like they were keeping new players from exercising the retrain option by "expressing their opinions" so antagonistically. A table judge doesn't get to decide what options are legal in PFS. That's been done for him by the campaign staff. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't take it out on the players.

They haven't changed this from Core. There is a flat +1 to melee rolls for being on "higher ground". As best I can remember, being mounted gives you this benefit against creatures smaller than your mount.

BUT it doesn't apply to ranged attacks. :'(

I seem to recall that when this came up once before, someone from the IT side saying that they would have to recode the database to allow for less than "full" GM credit, and it wasn't a priority. Just make sure your chronicle is correct, and you'll be fine.

More rules are never better. Why needlessly complicate something that works just fine the way it is? The benefit of your proposed change is far outweighed by the hassle.

As for GMs influencing players towards not retraining, that is outside their scope. If there are GMs that are "discouraging" legal character options they need to be reported to the event coordinator, or a Venture officer.

There is nothing in the rules (that I know of) that treats the barrels separately for the purposes of the "broken" condition. The weapon is either broken, or it's not.

Now if they both literally fire at the same time it wouldn't matter, but if he were firing them Rapid Shot...

Bah, I'm done talking out of my ass. In the end, it doesn't work because they say it doesn't work. Wanting there to be an internally consistent universe is apparently asking too much. ;-)

I've heard arguments before about mixing old and new scenarios with regard to certain faction leaders, but they all forget to take one thing into account.

But seriously, you can easily wave away many of the continuity issues, or just use a little care in picking the order you run scenarios.

sees her brand new shiney and dances around the thread throwing glitter on everyone

I thought you looked different somehow. That start suits you. :D

note on my last comment, I found out I can not get Iproved trip.

Why not?

Edit: D'oh. He was talking about his animal companion. :facepalm:

The Guide doesn't say that you have to be alive, and in fact specifically mentions selling a dead character's gear at half price to purchase the raise. That's not the same as saying one dead character's gear can be sold to pay for another character's raise, but it should be up to the player.

If one player wants to give up the chance for his character to come back to life so that another character can, that should be encouraged.

I don't see the issue with a medium companion anyway. My wife's Druid is a Bear Shaman, and her companion is a combat beast. I don't see how you could manage a large companion in a dungeon, however. If the choice were mine, I would want to keep it Medium instead of Large unless I was planning to use Mounted Combat shenanigans.

If you want to go back through an old favorite, just grab a group that's already played it and say "Let's play _____ just for fun." There's nothing stopping you from enjoying another playthrough, you just won't get credit. Think of it as a chance to test out that new build you've been wanting to try with no penalty for failure.

The answer is "no" because healing is not damage.

Sorry, mpl, but can you provide a source for that? Cure light wounds does positive energy damage, which heals living creatures. A first level cure does 1d8+1 positive energy damage, times two on a crit. Just because your GM will only let you crit enemies and not your allies doesn't change the way the spell works.

The answer is no because you dont need an attack roll to hit your friend with a cure light wounds spell. With inflict wounds you can crit..

PRD wrote:

Spells and Critical Hits: A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit. If a spell causes ability damage or drain (see Special Abilities), the damage or drain is doubled on a critical hit.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your logic. Both spells have the range of "touch", which means they both, by RAW, require a touch attack to use. With a willing ally who isn't trying to resist the spell, the touch is assumed to hit automatically. The "defender" is welcome to try to dodge the cleric and even make his will save for half damage if he (for some reason) didn't want to be healed.

The fact is, a rogue could UMD a cure light wounds wand to sneak attack an undead enemy, but for "some reason" can't do the same thing with an unconscious ally. I'm okay with the answer being "No", just don't try to tell me it's against RAW.

Despite SKR saying no, I've always (since 2001, when these spells lasted for 1hour/level) ruled that it would and will continue to do so.

Yes they can. They have the vocal chords, they have the skill points... so they can speak.

So if I was a druid with a bear animal companion, and I put his 4th level ability increase into Intelligence and he put a rank in Linguistics you would let him speak? Bears have vocal chords. Let's take it a step further. If druids know a language, why are they specifically called out as not being able to speak in animal form even if they take the form of a parrot or other bird that can mimic speech?

Getting a parrot to mimic speech would be an application of the Perform trick, not the linguistics skill. The reason a parrot/raven/thrush familiar can speak is because they gain a supernatural ability to do so, and it's limited to one language.

I have to ask: Why do you want to?

The only reason I can think of would be if the first time I went through a scenario it was with a really crappy GM who was running cold and I wasn't able to enjoy it.

Thankfully that's never happened, but if it did I would want to replay the scenario under a competent GM (even if not for credit).