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

Rogue Eidolon's page

3,506 posts. Alias of Mark Seifter (Designer).


1 to 50 of 3,506 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Agreed. I undestood it completely. Thanks a lot! I totally agree with the Elven Protector being kind of like a "boss monster" relationship. The Suspicious archer druid PC who had a somewhat little-sister relationship managed to break through to rank 10 early in Part 5, which flabbergasted some of the other characters who were much further back.

Based on your review, you'll be happy to know that once I finish some of my other freelancing commitments, I am planning to work to finish some LG releases for more character options for relationship NPCs! I actually have dozens of them for my own GMing of a Far Eastern Adventure Path, in fragmented sentences and notes "for me" that basically just need me to translate from Mark notes to English. That said, such a translation takes a lot of time.

Malwing wrote:

That's 5 more today. (Technically Tinker was 6 books in one package) That's 44 reviews in ten days and marks the end of the books I have hard copies of or printed out and bound. The exception is my two Pact Magic books because that is going through a huge thing right now so I'm going to wait on the final product of it's revision and compilation.

Now that I'm moving on to PDFs I'll be taking a look at a lot of things that don't have reviews at all and some things that I thought I reviewed but did not. If you read my reviews looking to purchase something please read carefully. Sometimes I have five or four stars for things that disappointed me or wouldn't be for everyone and I note why the review is so high despite this because they are good products but I don't want you picking up something with the wrong expectations.

Loving those reviews so far! Make sure to look through that list of pdfs carefully... ;)

Chemlak wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Looks like Ultimate but not Imperial has reviews, but the review mentions Imperial anyway.

Oh, I'm going to give Imperial Relationships its own review, too. I just need to remind myself all about Jade Regent, first. And do a couple of other reviews, too. And prep my adventure. And work.

Damn, it seems I do have a life...

These lives, bah!

But seriously, no pressure. That was meant to show that your awesome review for URel was so thorough, I actually thought they both had reviews from just the one, not to be impatient on a review for ImpRel!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
So, can someone review more of Jon Brazer's race books if they have them. Seedlings were good but I'm on the fence about them.

I certainly wouldn't mind a review of Reapers. I know a few people who are playing them and like them a lot, but I'd still like to hear more one way or the other about my only non-reviewed for-sale product. Masquerade reveler and Ultimate/Imperial Relationships are also cool, but they have reviews so far, and I'm curious what other people think of my little psychopomp planetouched.

EDIT: Looks like Ultimate but not Imperial has reviews, but the review mentions Imperial anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
My understanding was that AoN has special permission, whereas other online sites are required to stick to the PRD material, which is why D20PFSRD needed to change the names and reword a lot of that material, but I could be wrong.

It's the opposite—due to gaining a store, d20pfsrd has special non-permission.

Yes, it would be multiple magical effects not stacking (also battle form is missing its polymorph tag due to my error of omission, which, when present, would also trigger a separate line about polymorph effects and size changing spells).

However, don't miss his exciting second post in that thread here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the spell does quite exactly what anyone (except Jaunt) thinks it does.

Spell wrote:
When you voluntarily use one or more actions or feats that apply penalties to attack rolls with your melee weapons (such as a charge, fighting defensively, or using the Power Attack feat), the spirit reduces the total penalty on affected attacks by 1 (to a minimum penalty of 0).

(it decreases "the total penalty" on the affected attacks by the given amount, not each penalty every time. So if you have CL 15 and are taking three -4 penalties, it reduces the total penalty to -8; it doesn't ignore all three of the penalties. It's still extremely powerful for its spell level at high caster level though, particularly for magus where it's 1st.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:
While it is stuck at +1 damage it does let all of his weapons get past DR/ magic and hurt incorporeals.
Just the DR. Doesn't help against incorporeals.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:

Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?

No one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.


Table Variation wrote:

knock knock

who's there?
it's me

We've been expecting you.


The NPC wrote:

Mr. Mark Seifter,

What was that 3rd party thing you did that drew on Persona?

Also, do you think that a setting where all of the spell casting classes are replaced by the occult classes would be viable for easy game play?

Posting as Rogue Eidolon since I have a policy generally not to link my other stuff with my golem-having avatar and everything. It's Ultimate Relationships for the rules themselves and then Imperial Relationships for four "social links" for your favorite Far Eastern Adventure Path.

@Occult casters only—I think it would work. In fact, if you also remove the psychic too and keep only barbarian, fighter, monk, ranger, rogue, paladin, and the other five occult classes, it may be super easy to run at high levels compared to a normal campaign. At that point, for non-combat stuff, the most disruptive ability even at level 17 that I can think of is a medium ability (for in-combat, aura of justice is still pretty disruptive if the bad guys are evil).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
Personally I will just be happy with Chosen One Paladin.

Would the familiar be a talking cat named Luna?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
London Duke wrote:
KK well I donned my mask of dazzling intellect and was able to save my third draft. Sorry for how short it is. My previous attempt was longer but hopefully this inspires a few "Martial-fans who are sad at being left out of OOC situations" to buy the book.

Many thanks for taking the time to review it not once but three times! I'm glad so many people like revelers and are having fun with them in their games.

Dustin Ashe wrote:

Huh, from what I'm hearing on this and other threads, a lot of groups really enjoy developing relationships with the NPCs. Some even sound like a Pokemon show: 'collect 'em all!'

My group largely ignores the NPCs. Ameiko and Sandru are actually PCs (played by latecomers to our group). They have very little, if any, interest in Koya or Shalelu and only slightly more interest in Ulf. (Never met Spivey as they didn't explore Brinewall village.) Of their own volition, they've forgotten all about Relationship scores. I've thought of trying to reintroduce the concept to them, but no one seems to care much about it.

Yeah, the lump sum relationship scores weren't particularly compelling for me and my players. When I ran this for my group, I used a 10 rank system that would have incentives like leveling up, and the system has since been published, that's what we've been talking about.

magnuskn wrote:

I just got the PDF a few days ago (and Imperial Relationships... as to that, I was a bit surprised that it only contained the rules for the four main NPC's... didn't you have rules for almost 50-something NPC's in the campaign?). I really didn't have the time to read anything beyond scrolling through it, so I can't give an informed answer at the moment. I'll get to it during the next weekend and then I can give a proper response if using it for the rebellion seems like a good idea to me. :)

I do have more, but they aren't written up in a useful way like that. The amount of time it takes to do that and the money art costs meant that a book of all of them wouldn't be a feasible thing due to how long it would be and thus how much it would then have to cost to buy (I still plan to release a regular stream of more of them when I can build up a surplus).

London Duke wrote:
Not sure whats happening. I have tried reviewing it 2x now and when I hit preview... it goes to the general paizo products page and I loose everything... Not very happy atm (love the book, very frustrated atm with the system)

Argh :( I hate it when they happens. On any site, I always obsessively copy my longer posts or write them in text files out of paranoia of this kind of thing. Of course, I'm someone who obsessively saves the game in games with save features too.

London Duke wrote:

Many thanks for the review. Can you let me know on which site I can find the review? I like to read all my reviews so I can gain XP and level up as a designer!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

Sounds like a lot of things went similar to my campaign, although I personally hated module three and, contrary to my original plans, ran module six pretty much as it was written.

I am picking up this campaign again for my second group, when we finish RotRL there in a few weeks, where I still am a player, instead of the GM. Since that group only has four players, instead of six, I foresee that they might try the slow approach to module six, instead of just bulldozing through the module. I'll have to rework rebellion points then, too.

If you're using Ultimate Relationships at all, I suggest making the rebellion its own Relationship Link. It's what I'm doing right now (in Book 5). I've given details about each province and region from Book 5's gazetteer and have just let the PCs decide what they're doing (right now, half the party is debating between assassinating or making contact with the governor of Akafuto, since it's the last province in their march from Seinaru Heikiko to Kasai, and the other half is under Mt Kumijinja trying to reforge Raiko (the Sugimatsu blade; I decided all the families' special weapons were intelligent instead of the Amatatsu's being arbitrarily way better, but Munasukaru had broken Raiko's intelligence over time)...then again, I also created 4 other "Storms" to go with Anamurumon and made Anamurumon more badass, so they're going to need all the help they can get...

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:
So any word on what a 'living' homunculus

I've been holding off because this one is more complicated. I can't comment in a way that's more than speculation to the homunculist because my clarification was cut, likely but not certainly to copyfit. However, I will post a rundown of how it started, but I'm using my Rogue Eidolon alias because as much as my clarifications weren't official FAQs before, this is completely and utterly unofficial. With that out of the way, here's the rundown of how it went (and how I'll run it in my games):

Super Unofficial Rundown:
The homunculist has actually created life. What they created is a living creature that, as the ability says "It functions in all ways as a familiar". So you pick hedgehog, and you get the exact same hedgehog as everyone else does, except you created it in a lab because you are just that awesome. You go Victor Frankenstein! Despite the auto-link feature on d20pfsrd that sometimes overlinks things, this does not make it the specific creature "homunculus." That paragraph is the same one I sent in. However, I realized there might be some ambiguity, so to make sure this was super-clear, I included a later ability that specified what would happen if the homunculist later decided to take Improved Familiar and get the actual creature type homunculus (which seemed like something a homunculist player would want to do). After all, it's a construct, and their special familiar is alive. Here's what it said:

Life Given Form (Ex): If the homunculist takes the Improved Familiar feat, he may only select the homunculus. Despite being of type construct, a homunculist’s homunculus is actually a living creature with 10 Constitution, losing all construct traits.

In other words, you could take Improved Familiar to get a homunculus, but if you did, since your special creation is alive, you get a living creature with 10 Con and no construct traits. With this text gone, now if you take Improved Familiar and select homunculus, you're going to get the non-living one by RAW, but hopefully that at least resolves the ambiguity about what's supposed to happen if you don't do that.


London Duke wrote:
Reviewed. Question Mark, it seems to me that this archetype gets more out of rage cycling than even a normal barbarain. If I am immune to fatigue, how often I change my masks? It seems like I could: Free Action Mask of Linnworm Wings, Move (fly) to the target, Free Action Mask of the Beserker, Attack, Free Action Mask of something giving me blur or the like.... Seems like a rage cycling dream.

Tireless rage is indeed really awesome for a reveler. I generally have seen most GMs draw the free action limit on entering a rage once per round (since free actions have a clause about the GM having to decide). It's what I do. It's still amazing even then, though, to have so many options round by round.

London Duke wrote:

So Mark, this archetype is amazing. I have now played 2 sessions with the character and I want to just say that it is a ton of fun. Figuring out which mask I wanted for 5th and 6th levels was very tricky. One thing I noticed though is that many of the masks seem quite repetitive, I am sure that comes mostly from the fact that the mask inspiration comes from repetitve monsters (fey). Am I able to make my own mask with 4,6,8 evolutions points or am I limited to only those that you listed? I was thinking that a Killorian (from 3.5) would be cool with the Alignment Smite evolution along with strength and some knowledge (nature).

Once again, this product is just awesome and I cant believe that I am just now finding it. It is so awesome to play a barbarian that lacks the Hulk Smash mentality (I do have to Berserker mask as my primary combat mask which I say resembles Pyramid Head from Silent Hill).

You can 100% make your own masks! In fact, the original archetype appeared without any masks and just left you on your own to make them from eidolon evolutions, but I really felt that it was worth adding 100+ new evolutions and then make lots of sample masks, for players who prefer premades. There's a few evolutions that tell you that they are only available for a particular mask, but otherwise, absolutely make your own, following the rules for masks in the archetype near the beginning.

Also, yeah, Berserker Mask is a solid combat option. Not quite as good at bashing heads as a normal barbarian, but hey, you have all those other options too, and the normal barbarian doesn't!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
London Duke wrote:

Sorry for the Necro but I found this archetype for a game I am currently playing in (Amythist:Renisance} and I am having a hell of a time figuring out how the heck to split up this guy's ability scores and just what the focus should be if I plan to be a melee striker/tank (normal barbarian role)... Any help would be amazing because I would love to play this archetype but cant seem to grab onto any amount of focus...

also how does the dweomercat rake without the claws evolution?

Hey there! Trust me, bumping a product description is not a necro, and no 3rd party author would be anything but happy for it.

As to your questions, the easy one first: As a quadruped beast mask, it gets claws for free (see the Beast Reveler feat, which is required to pick dweomercat).

As to stat build? You can go with typical barbarians stats if you like. There are masks out there to suit almost any build, but the more typical barbarian you want to go, the more that typical barbarian stats are going to be fine for you. It'll mean that certain masks won't be so useful for you, but those probably weren't masks you wanted to use anyway!

***** Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Level 10?! Go for level 9!

They'll be forced to play the 6 player version of low subtier, I think. Best challenge I can see is 1 11, 2 10s, and a level 7 pregen Harsk.

Prince of Knives wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Cerebrawl wrote:

First of all, why isn't this race up on d20pfsrd? Not OGL?

Second off, how well balanced and how versatile is this race? I was looking for a neutral aligned Aasimar/Tiefling alternative, preferably something as versatile as the Aasimar(alternate attribute boosts and race features).

And of course, is the fluff any good?

Asking because I cannot find any information about this at all online, though I admit I haven't looked for a torrent of the pdf.

You could, you know, actually buy a copy of the product.

Just a thought ...

While I'm not opposed to this sentiment, the great advantage of OGL for the customer is the ability to try before you buy, and as someone who's benefited from it for yeeaaars and years I've gotta put my support behind that idea.

I agree with Prince. I'm glad Dale put the race info on the thread. I want people to be able to take a look at the mechanics and buy the product if they love it to support the product, or if they want the flavor information and ideas too (I stand behind the flavor as being cool enough to be worth the price on its own).

The player with a reaper dusk druid (director's cut version of the archetype, PM me if you have the pdf and want a peek at it) in my Jade Regent campaign has said it's her favorite character she's ever played, so that's a good thing! There's a bunch of alternate abilities, but honestly the panoply of ability score options for aasimar and tieflings comes from the fact that those planetouched represent many different outsider subtypes, while reapers are only for psychopomps, so it wouldn't make any sense (plus it's easier to make a balanced race with cool abilities that won't overshadow all the other races when there's a fixed set of ability scores).


David Neilson wrote:
I am still slightly curious that it has no other requirements. You are assumed to either marry in or get adopted. Which gives me the horribly funny mental image of the Charisma seven point this way at enemy characters married to a Blakros.

Sounds like the perfect tool for the family, easily manipulated and pointed at the correct enemy by a more intelligent wife, who dallies with more charismatic fellows while he is away Pathfindering.

Dustin Ashe wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Another possibility is to just treat those Part 1 NPCs as Part 3 NPCs for the purpose of CP needed (thus lowering the number of CP needed to rank up) and just carry on as normal. That could be your easiest bet. Cheers!
That is effortless. Thank you. It's probably a testament to how robust this system is that that answer comes so quickly.

I needed a system for my home game that worked with the fact that there are currently roughly 30 relationship links available at each milestone, and 6 PCs, and I wrote it all out more carefully to release to you guys with this book (and URel). If it's flexible enough to work for that without causing my head to explode, it makes it easier for me to bend it to handle queries like yours!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given that you only have two NPCs to worry about, one possibility is that you could have your PCs do a retrospective / flashback episode for those two NPCs, wherein you take the campaign so far milestone by milestone and retcon a bunch of conversations. Another possibility is to just treat those Part 1 NPCs as Part 3 NPCs for the purpose of CP needed (thus lowering the number of CP needed to rank up) and just carry on as normal. That could be your easiest bet. Cheers!


Like John says—I've seen a witch use this boon to get, I believe, something like 450+600+750+900+1050+1200+1350=6300 gp, which was then enough to finish financing his upgrade to a +6 intelligence on his headband (it was 1/3 of the upgrade from +4 to +6 all on its own).


Oh, cool, so sounds like only good news then!


Bad news and good news.

Reskinning is not allowed in PFS. Also, if you don't have a playtest boon, you'll have to wait for the book to come out to play a kineticist.

Now the good news: there are rumors of some actual blood kineticist type stuff in the final book, so when it comes out, if those rumors are true, you might not need to reskin!

doc the grey wrote:
Okay so for the vast majority of instances the only time one can gain CP or rank up is during a milestone. All other times it's just game as usual unless otherwise GM stated.

Yep, although the CP/rank up attempt can happen any time between the two milestones. It doesn't have to be like on the exact day that you announce "We hit a new milestone guys!"

And also, leveling up gives you some free CP to spend on your relationships too. By controlling milestones and levels, you can pace the relationships exactly right for your campaign!

doc the grey wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
So that means that if the PC sorcerer had potential rank ups with all 5 NPCs in that potential period he can take a shot at ranking up with all of them correct?

Indeed. Because I am a crazy person, my PCs had the opportunity with 28 different NPCs during the last milestone (they're getting to the end and have met nearly all that they will ever meet, and they've fastidiously managed to convince every possible NPC to join their caravan because they love collecting NPCs and ranking them up).

If you collect all the minis, you too can have an intricate web of relationships that connects the PCs to a complicated supporting cast!

Lord! That's way more than I thought you could pull per milestone! I actually use the caravan system in my homebrew and custom build hirable NPCs for them alongside the heavyweight ones and they've started to befriend them as well! I thought it was just one and considering the number of milestones you got (around 5-10) by the end of it you would have all of them amongst the party. This does not make incorporating this now that the game has been going for almost a year much easier.

k next question:

So with CP that can be earned at any time that I as GM deign that they have done something to help further their relationship with an NPC rather than just at milestones correct?

With gifts are those meant to be something that can only be used to rank up or is that mechanic also applicable to earning CP?

Each milestone, they get 1 attempt per NPC to give a gift or perform an interaction using a skill (maybe go on a little hunting trip, etc). This might give CP. However, if the PCs do something significant for the NPC, it might give free CP above and beyond this. For instance, saving an NPC from being kidnapped would definitely count.

doc the grey wrote:
So that means that if the PC sorcerer had potential rank ups with all 5 NPCs in that potential period he can take a shot at ranking up with all of them correct?

Indeed. Because I am a crazy person, my PCs had the opportunity with 28 different NPCs during the last milestone (they're getting to the end and have met nearly all that they will ever meet, and they've fastidiously managed to convince every possible NPC to join their caravan because they love collecting NPCs and ranking them up).

If you collect all the minis, you too can have an intricate web of relationships that connects the PCs to a complicated supporting cast!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I mentioned in the Ultimate Relationships thread, thank you to everyone who made Imperial Relationships a part of your game! I'm working on a series of minis that can be generally be retooled to fit in your campaign but particularly cover characters you might meet in a Far Eastern campaign. It's your interest, as expressed by talking about the product, buying it, and leaving reviews that help inspire me to get more of these out there!



doc the grey wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
doc the grey wrote:

Are milestones meant to be tied to the rank up scenarios presented in Imperial relationships or are they meant to be something more free floating that happens independent of the rank ups?

Are gifts something that can happen separate from milestones or are they meant to only happen in tandem with milestones?

So what happens if a player reaches the camaraderie cap with a character but there are no more milestones planned for that current part of the adventure path, can they still rank up without a milestone or are they supposed to wait until another milestone occurs and try then?

If a player fails his chance to rank up at a milestone and again they are out of milestones does that mean that they have to wait till another one occurs or can they initiate the rank up without being in a milestone?

The guide suggests that there should be about 5 milestones per ap book. Are each of these meant to be tied to individual characters or is the opportunity an open opportunity to advance your plot with any character you can?

What is the average rank progression supposed to be per level or book? I.e. is there supposed an average rank a player is supposed to be at with each character at each level?

Think of milestones like markers that together delimit a period of time. So let's say Milestone #10 was saving the frog princess and Milestone #11 was allying with the flamingo knights. Then between those two events, each PC can try one gift or activity to gain CP, and if they are ready for rank up, they can attempt that rank up once (if they gain enough CP to rank up due to a gift or activity, they can do both).

Does that mean you can only attempt 1 rank up or CP increase per period?

For example during that period between frog princesses and flamingo knight the PC Sorcerer can only gain CP with one NPC or rank up and not say further his relationship with like 3 NPCs?

During that period between frog princesses and flamingo knight milestones, PC Sorcerer can attempt to gain CP once with every NPC that spent significant time with the PCs in that period. The PC can also attempt to rank up once with every such NPC who is ready to rank up.

El Ronza wrote:
Anything else in this line is most likely going to be an insta-buy for me. I loved this product! When would one be able to expect more minis? :-)

We'd like to get started as soon as I take the ones I already have and put them in a presentable form for the crew at Legendary to lay them out!

With the holiday season coming up, I don't want to make any promises on estimated dates though.

OK guys, having seen the first month returns on this one, thanks to everyone for taking a look at Ultimate Relationships! I'm working on some follow-up minis that will give you more relationship links to play with and stockpile for your campaign!

magnuskn wrote:
That's why I put a permanent dimensional lock on the entire room. :p

I did something similar (my version of the Seal was more badass so that the oni could be less foolish/do-nothing without breaking the plot, but it prevented the party from using dimensional magic while they benefited from it) and also gave her several more levels, switched her to a playtest shaman (who still had cleric spells at the time), added an escaped Tunuak to the encounter, and had her use a scroll to bring in a frosty glabrezu of Sithhud (PCs usually have 8 people, and they were 1 level overleveled, so I don't recommend all that for 4 players).


It's always a judgment call when it would affect the encounter as much as this one. In this case, if you look at the two subtiers, all the scenario adds in the high subtier is the third hag that uses coven powers. Normally adding one creature to an encounter with two of that creature raises the CR by only 1, and since the higher subtier is usually shooting for raising the CR by 3 (since 8-9 is 3 higher than 5-6), it probably means that the author expected those tactics to be allowed. After all, in theory, an encounter with 5 hags is 3 CR higher than an encounter with 2 hags, and the 5 hags could have 3 of them do a coven power and the other two attack in melee, and this illegal 3 coven is strictly weaker than that. When I ran it, I stuck with the tactics and just had this be a special coven.

DrSwordopolis wrote:

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
50% miss chance from using tremorsense

Common misconception, largely I suspect due to the difference between Blindsense and Blindsight. As long as you're touching the ground it works like Blindsight.

Tremorsense wrote:
Tremorsense (Ex) A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground.

Let's look at Blindsense side-by-side.

Blindsense wrote:
The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability

My two cents in my own game:

An earth gliding druid who attacked with slams, a touch, or a ray or something with the 50% miss chance from using tremorsense instead of sight would probably work like the incorporeal example (untargetable except while attacking, and then cover). If the druid wants line of effect, line of sight, or the ability to target anything other than with a touch, then they would need to be out of the wall (to requote the incorporeal rules from the OP but add an additional line that comes just before for context):

incorporeal wrote:
It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see beyond the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge.

Also, in the "in the wall reaching out" mode, I would imagine that the druid's ability to communicate with the party in either direction, including to command any animal companion, is virtually non-existent. Perhaps in a home game the other characters can come up with a foot-tapping morse code to reveal information to the druid via tremorsense, though that seems like it would take actions beyond free.

Nefreet wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

In order to avoid table variation, we can only go off of what's listed in the description of the item.

Scrolls are not on that list.

Ah, only what's listed, I see. I don't think that's a universal PFS rule, though, is it? Mike seems in your link to be specifically referring to the summon minor monster spell.

He actually confirmed Carlos' comment earlier in that thread, which stated "in PFS, in order to avoid table variation, we go with what's listed".

And so, since it's an Adventurers Armory item, you said you can't FAQ it, right?

So, in PFS, no scrolls.

Carlos's earlier post in the linked thread actually mentioned there being table variation when you go off of such a list. I think we are in an area of table variation, so for now, while I intend to continue allowing them, I also completely respect Chris standing his ground and not allowing them. I have played at Chris's table before and would happily play at his table again and just not use my scrolls in wrist-sheaths if it's one of my characters who has scrolls instead of wands.

Nefreet wrote:

In order to avoid table variation, we can only go off of what's listed in the description of the item.

Scrolls are not on that list.

Ah, only what's listed, I see. I don't think that's a universal PFS rule, though, is it? Mike seems in your link to be specifically referring to the summon minor monster spell. I can see a lot of danger, with situations like "If the PCs have any visible weapons with them, such as swords, which Enpeesee dislikes the most, Enpeesee refuses to allow them entrance to the museum" allowing PCs with axes to enter the museum because only swords are listed.

In this case, that would mean that a kukri or starknife, for instance, despite basically being the same size and shape as a dagger, wouldn't pass muster.

Nefreet wrote:
It does, in PFS.

Based on the "physical description" section of scrolls, it still seems as ambiguous as ever on whether it would fit. I may be missing something though. At the risk of becoming like a character in a Phoenix Wright game, can you tell me which new phrase in the description generates the contradiction?

Nefreet wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Well, SLWS can't hold scrolls anyways, so that's a moot point.
Interesting. Hadn't seen that one. I'm curious to read it; got a link?
Of course ;-)

Does that definitively block scrolls?

Nefreet wrote:
Well, SLWS can't hold scrolls anyways, so that's a moot point.

Interesting. Hadn't seen that one. I'm curious to read it; got a link?

Nefreet wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

So, using yours and James' logic, and the comment you edited into Jason's post, would it be reasonable to rule that SLWS don't provoke?

Because until your comments just now, I figured it all made sense.

I can't see much justification for it in the strict rules, given it says it acts as a normal wrist sheath, but I'm happy to houserule it into home games anyway. It's Adventurer's Armory, so I can't really help you with a FAQ.

Like Chris, I don't do homegames.

I think we're both interested in something we can rule for our PFS games.

While the RAW seems to lean the other way, it isn't 100% spelled out, and no NPC I've seen in PFS ever uses the things, so if you let players avoid provoking, I doubt they will make an issue at the table. Just when you're a player, if you accept the other ruling graciously, things should probably be OK.

Undone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Actually, Chris, you might want to change your stance about the SLWS provoking.

Jason Bulmahn mentions HERE that the general rule regarding swift and free actions is that they don't provoke.

As the person who edited that comment into Jason's post, I will say that some swift and free actions provoke (such as reloading a gun).
Out of curiosity could you settle the question of using pummeling bully without the feat associated being a provoking action?

I can't "settle" anything, but it seems to me that given it's a trip attempt that is not using the monster Trip ability, it would normally provoke from your trip target. That said, barring shenanigans (which, of course, are a common way to get style feats, for better or worse), you'll have Improved Trip anyway to take this feat.

1 to 50 of 3,506 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.