|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Maybe where you're from. I've heard it both ways in Alabama. Maybe Cooter Brown would know...
Seems possible, as long as you spend the minimum amount of your "real" character's wealth first. The problem is the guide says "During play, you may need to resolve various conditions that aﬀect your character." Your could be read strictly to not allow you to contribute to other character's conditions.
There was some back and forth during the battle, but ultimately my group killed Khelru, subdued Idorii and Azaz, and forced Velirana to surrender. They brought them back and turned them over to the guards. The Schorched Hand were put on trial for (unsanctioned) grave robbing and attempted murder. As the leader, Velriana was hanged while Idorii and Azaz were merely banished from Wati.
Velriana will make her return in book two, while I'm saving Azaz, and possibly Idorii, for book three. :)
That's a good point that I never thought of. As long as there is no time constraint, and you start at the Grand Lodge, you can spend 1d4 hours to make the check even untrained (and not be limited to DC 10). I would imagine the Lodge would also provide at least a +2 bonus (It's got the Pathfinder Chronicles, right?)
Well, that escalated quickly.
No, scenarios are to be run as written, including locations and maps for where encounters take place. The only exception is for players, through in character actions, invalidating what is written in the scenario. You are not going to get anyone to directly contradict that statement.
Now does that mean scenarios are always run as written? No. Not hardly. Does that matter? Yeah, I guess. It sucks when you find out the GM made a mistake. It sucks more when you find out it wasn't a mistake and the GM changed things on a whim. But short of proof that something was changed on a whim, no one is going to throw someone under the bus for what was likely an honest mistake or a reasonable attempt to deal with a curveball that the scenario didn't account for.
You're not going to get an absolute answer, even in a vacuum, because that answer is already given in the guide. Expecting an absolute, one size fits all answer is unrealistic, and your being sensitive about people poking fun at that makes it less likely anyone else will try to engage you in conversation. BNWs answer was a valid response. He was comparing one rule with no listed exceptions that people routinely break with another rule with a listed exception that people tend not to (in my experience) break. Sorry you weren't able to see the merit in his comparison.
It's already been established that there is disagreement, and that both sides are lacking clear proof. Why do you have such a bone to pick with this one? Why is everyone who doesn't agree with you so clearly wrong in your eyes? You aren't going to play or run it with a level 2 unless you get clarification to the contrary (and, I suspect, not even then). Stellar. The issue seems to be resolved on your end.
Michael Brock wrote:
Master of the Fallen Fortress still rewards 1 XP and 0 PP. It isn't going to change.
I'm going to miss Mike's absolutism.
As for the topic at hand, "All other rules for sanctioned module play, found in Chapter 6 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, should be followed." is pretty clear. He didn't say "All other rules, except the one about playing once as a level 2."
Why is it so hard for people to apply the rules that already exist instead of inventing "corner cases" and demanding specific rulings? Specific rulings get things banned, and this one was almost lost to the banhammer when the issue of "It doesn't give any Prestige" was brought up.
Why is no one complaining about the "1 XP" that is filled in, when slow track is an option at level 1? Why is no one complaining about the lack of a day job box when day jobs are allowed for modules? Because it doesn't matter. We know the rules, they're in the Guide. We overlook mistakes on the chronicles and use the rules as they exist now.
It doesn't matter that it says "Tier 1" because we know, looking at the Guide to Organized play, that it is a replayable 1-2 that offers 1xp and 1 Fame/Prestige.
If you encounter a group of enemies, and the party leader/strategist tells you to take care of them, do you assume that means draw them a warm bath, or do you kill them? Playing word games because you are dominated when your character would normally just stomp face is a bad as cheating, IMO.
We didn't get along, that much is obvious. Despite that, I'm not happy to see you go, and I'm very much unhappy to hear the reason. My thoughts are with you and your family. I do not envy your successor, they will have a lot to live up to.
If you find yourself in Birmingham, the first round's on me.
I'd have to disagree. Never, that I can remember, did they ever guarantee they would sanction all future APS (or past ones, for that matter). They are doing this as the schedule permits in order to give us more playable content for PFS. They should not be putting them on the schedule at the expense of accrual PFS content and other Paizo events.
As for using volunteers, they've said in the past that even volunteer work has to be edited up to Paizo standards, and that takes in-house talent that they really can't spare right now. You're asking then to devote real money resources to something that flat out won't be profitable.
I'm pretty sure your barbarian will be doing just fine without massive bonus increases.
What massive increases? A +4 courageous weapon (or a+2 furious courageous weapon) gave a "massive" +2 to Strength and Constitution while raging. Hardly overpowered at the levels where a +4/+5 weapon are the norm.
What poor wizard felt threatened that y'all had to make sure to nerf martials just that much harder?
Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.
"You can create magic items using these feats," Those feats are already banned. There is no problem or confusion in the rules, or in the feat description.
Why are we still waiting on answers like this a year after the book was "finished"? It doesn't bode well for Occult Adventures. :-/
EDIT: And are we sure it hasn't been answered? I had a question about Hunter ACs using Skirmisher tricks, and finally found the answer in a PDT forum post but it was never added to the FAQ (despite being a very FAQ).
I would disagree with most of the other posters and say don't wait on Power Attack. Gives you a nice punch on a charge or any other times TWF isn't an option. Don't forget that you can swing a double weapon as a two-hander to get the full benefit in those situations.
Two-Weapon Defense is a trap. Better off just taking Dodge if you need extra AC, and even that isn't your best use of a feat. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, etc. do double duty on a double weapon, so those are good picks. A front liner really can't go wrong with Toughness.
Unless they fixed it, deleting a character doesn't free that number. If I delete my -13, the next character I register will still be -14. Doesn't really fix the problem. :shrug:
I'm just glad when I get the chance to report with everyone still at the table. Makes clearing up things like this much easier.
Eric Ives wrote:
Not just minis. Try finding Wayang artwork for character inspiration.
I suppose I would like to see Kobolds, but I'm really fine with the way special races are already handled. There's already so many interesting race/class combinations I'll never have a chance to play them all.
*grumble grumble* I suppose I have until Gen Con to play my 7th level GM Credit Kitsune, my 6th level GM/Dragon's Demand credit Tengu, and a character concept for a Nagaji. Thankfully I've played my Wayang Witch through about half of Emerald Spire.
Requiring everyone to play by the same rules, once they're made aware of those rules, is being a douche? But it's okay for you to state flat out that you aren't going to follow the rule even when it's linked for you?
It blows my mind that so many of my posts are hidden for "being a jerk", but people are able to flaunt other rules and everyone just says "oh well."
A PC is considered "newly created" until it is played for the first time at higher than level 1. If you have a boon, such as a race boon or the retirement arc boon, that can only be applied to a newly created PC, that PC is still eligible under the retrain rules. This is the same reason people with GM Credit summoners had to retrain if they had never actually played higher than level 1 as an APG Summoner.
Mike Brock wrote:
What's more disruptive: "I'm mounted, so my speed is 40ft." or "You can't have an eidolon and a mount. There's a rule. Well, not a rule, a FAQ. Hang on, I'll pull it up. It will just take a minute. Okay, no. Wait. Here it is. Yeah, it does say and, but that's not what it means."
Chris Clay wrote:
I have been going by the rule of "If it doesn't say it doesn't multiply, then it multiplies" on crits, and will continue to do so until I see an official ruling that says otherwise.
That seems a safe bet to me. It's certainly not binding, but the FAQ for D&D 3.5e says:
Now, Power Attack works differently in PFRPG, but the damage should be treated the same way. Also, there are effects that do Precision Damage that don't get multiplied that aren't extra dice, but for the most part it seems clear that effects that add to damage should multiply.
Reid Richter wrote:
It still amazes me. Mike Brock is fairly consistent about things like this. One poster will ask why something is not legal and the response will be "it doesn't fit the flavor of Golarion." Then, every time, someone else will say "But what about this? It's got the same flavor, and is legal." And then everyone is surprised when Mike says "Okay, I should probably ban that too, then."
Maybe folks should quit poking the bear.
Well that's not correct (Edit: referring to Michael's post). And as for the nice folks in the rules forum directing you here, that wasn't correct either. Putting "PFS" in a rules question doesn't make it a PFS question. Crits work the same in PFS as they do in regular Pathfinder.
The allegation that VOs are discussing rules in the VO boards, getting them wrong, and then using their status as VOs to spread these wrong interpretations is troubling.
Proposal: Please fix the "XP / PP / GM star credit" disparity between scenarios and Thornkeep / Emerald Spire
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
And it is not like having more GM stars really gives you more forum credibility - personally I think it kinda creates a bit of an unfair expectation like "What did that 4 Star GM just say? I can't believe how someone with so many reported games can still say something so [description] " ...
Hey! I represent that remark! Although I guess I don't have "so many" since I've been sitting at 3 stars for over a year now.
Some folks just like to do the "sanctioned" material. Some like to explore the town and learn all the little plot connections. There's no wrong way to play besides outright cheating. "Alright guys, I have no idea what's in this next room, but for some reason I have a feeling the guy with the highest touch AC needs to go first."
Mike says no. That's really all that matters at this point.
Michael Brock wrote:
You can retrain rogue into unchained rogue or vice versa. You can not retrain ninja into unchained rogue unless you want to use the retraining rules already established.
The Ninja is an alternate rogue. It's an option you can take instead of rogue. Just like the Unchained versions of Core classes will be alternate versions. You can pick either Core or Unchained to make, but never the two shall twine.
You can't play an "Unchained Ninja" because it doesn't exist. There are already rules for retraining a character because "I'm tired of playing it." Those retraining rules have a cost, as well they should. Retraining for free is for new characters (never played at level 2) or characters who have the rules changed out from under them.
"I'm bored" is neither of those.
Proposal: Please fix the "XP / PP / GM star credit" disparity between scenarios and Thornkeep / Emerald Spire
GM Lamplighter wrote:
(Although - because this is an issue with the system, everyone *has* experienced it, they may just not have identified this as the cause. How many people have played with a person who has no idea how to play their 9th-level PC? I'd be interested in seeing how many of those issues correlate with how many levels of Emerald Spire/Thornkeep/Free RPG Day modules the person has played, but that sort of evidence is unlikely to be available. Of course, it's hard to disentangle the various factors at play, and local issues would likely dominate anyway.)
Alright, I'll bite. I know of two players who never really developed an understanding of their characters who leveled up to 7 with Thornkeep. One was playing a white-haired witch based on a build he found online. He eventually stopped playing the character because he never could get it to do what he wanted. The other was a Wizard whose spell list might have been composed solely of Magic Missile for all I ever saw cast. Neither of these, in my opinion, were really the fault of Thornkeep itself. Both were newer players playing characters they were new to, in a convention environment where the games tended to be back to back to back. Tell me you wouldn't stumble a bit going from level 2 to level 7 in 72 hours.
I myself am playing my first ever witch in Emerald Spire. I'm having so much fun playing my witch, I think I'm going to make it my "Eyes of the Ten" character. I would love to be able to play her more, but not if it meant having to break immersion and play other things in between levels. We play once a week at most (usually more like 1-2 times a month) so I don't have to rush to level her up between games. I think the time crunch at a convention, or general player inexperience is where the problems come in.
If you want to play one of those listed races, you must have a chronicle sheet (similar to the one you get at the end of an adventure), often called a boon, that specifically allows the creation of a character of that race. The only way your friend can play an Aasimar/Tiefling without a boon is if he created one before August 14, 2014 and it earned at least one experience point before that date.
What portion of the text is causing confusion? Do you have any suggestions for clarifying it?
The table of credit issue is not going to be fixed. The system recognizes only two types of adventures: Scenarios (worth one table of credit) or Modules (worth two). Paizo decided the resources to fix the system issue weren't worth it compared to the relatively minor problem of some GMs getting two tables worth of credit for a scenario length module.