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

Sniggevert's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette. 2,672 posts (3,296 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 23 Pathfinder Society characters. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,672 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Saiman wrote:

Not sure where to put this question...

Anyway, been prepping for running the Wounded Wisp and it says after the first fight of PC vs Monsters: "Rewards: If the PCs fail to defeat the creatures in area A13,(with or without help), reduce each PC’s gold earned by 50 gp."

I don't understand why. It says the monsters have been down there a while so they are hungry... why would the PC lose gold?

At this point, I'm ready to ignore that and give them the gold for it.

Ah, I remember this now. There's a word missing...I've added it to the sentence.

If they don't succeed in defeating the encounter, the do not get the notes/what nots from the room so lose out on the 50gp.

From the development portion of the room's text:

Quote:

With the creatures defeated, the PCs

can properly examine the files on the desk.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

GM Lamplighter wrote:

"Gods: All gods listed in the tables on pages 229, 231, and 234 are legal for play;"

Are the Four Horsemen gods? The Eldest and Empyreal lords aren't gods, either; neither are demon lords or other possible personae of worship. I think no, and so just being on those pages is trumped by the AR specifying "gods".

That's the AR for Inner Sea World Guide

The AR for Inner Sea Gods lists:

Quote:
Gods: all of the gods listed in the appendix are legal choices except daemon harbingers, great old ones, infernal dukes, malebranche, nascent demon lords, orc deities, outer gods, qlippoth lords, and whore queens;

The Horsemen, Demon Lords, Arch Devils, etc. are all in the appendix along with the excluded bunch...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber
Meager Rolmug wrote:

I'm just going to buy a scroll of "daylight", which is a 3rd level spell(375gp). So against darkness it should "overpower" it in the overlapping area? Or does it dispel(turn off) the darkness altogether if its area includes the object with darkness cast on it?

I believe against deeper darkness it would return the overlapping areas to normal light conditions as they are both 3rd level spells.

If you're in deeper darkness and can not see, how will read a scroll?

Oils are a little easier to do in total darkness, though it costs twice as much as the scroll (750g).

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Bob Jonquet wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Interesting. I've never seen anyone charged a move action to use a tool.
Depending on the tool, its perfectly reasonable to expect to have to use a move action to draw it. In the extreme depending on the nature of the tool, I've seen a GM charge a standard action to use it, incidental to the skill itself.

This...and most of the times I hear folks using tools for skills its for non-combat skill checks where the time is immaterial. If you're using it mid-combat, it would very much depend on what that tool is on what action it would take to use IMO.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber
Tim Statler wrote:
Yes I did mean Class Deck characters.

In that case, there's actually 2 =p (Vika and Zarlova).

It really is an issue. And I know they were trying to keep the character decks neutral, but that hurts in game play with flavor specific skills.

I'm currently playing both Jirelle and Lem from the S&S box as part of my cast of characters and both have the option of Craft. Lem to start and Jirelle as a role upgrade.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber

No. Iteratives must be taken from highest to lowest.

EDIT:

PRD on Full Attack action wrote:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Chris Mortika wrote:
Shadfowd, do I understand that one of the gameday GMs at your local store game is disallowing the Horsemen as legal gods? Hoes that GM have any support for his declaration?

I'd assume he probably thought that the Horsemen counted as a Daemon Harbringer. That said, yes the actual 4 Horsemen appear to be legal.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Papa-DRB wrote:

Apologies if this has been asked / answered, but I have a couple of questions.

I assume (and we all know what that means), that the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, will be re-written some day for Core, as it presents a lot of options that are now no longer valid and too numerous to ask about.

Two traits in particular. Adopted. Does this open Race Traits, which are not part of the Web Enhancement. Rich Parents. Is this allowed?

-- david

A full re-write of the Guide will happen someday to include Core. I'm assuming it'll be around July (GenCon). I could be wrong and it might come earlier, but I wouldn't count on it.

If it was banned from PFS it wouldn't be allowed in Core (Rich Parents), and if it's not on the Web Traits list or a chronicle, then the trait is not available to the best of my understanding.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

At table size 3, you must use a pre-gen stop gap.

If you do not have a viable table of 4-5 players due to class make-up...one of them can play a pre-gen rather than everyone fail the mission. Or they can play it harder... There are a lot of magic item options to overcome various diversity deficiencies...

All scenarios have options to "balance" it to a table of 4. How good those are vary wildly from encounter to encounter sometimes though.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

The Fox wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Suppose there are 9 of us in this local group (this is actually realistic, I am prepping to run a table for 3 tonight parallel to the table of 4 that my friend is running).

Absent of the CORE campaign, there are two options:
Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2);
Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11).

The nine of us will need to work out who sits where. But at least we have two choices of tables for shuffling butts in chairs.

With the CORE table added, we still have only nine players. So only two tables are going to fire. If one of those is the CORE table, then we have removed an option for those uninterested in playing in that campaign. If someone has already played the scenario in the normal campaign, they will be walking home without a game.

BUT- you have added an option for those who want it.

If you have 9 players and less than 4 want CORE...don't offer it. Do what you have been doing and offer 2 tables of games, and shuffle butts in chairs.

I understand that we have added options for those that want CORE. That is not in dispute.

I am trying to explain the concern shared by those that do not want CORE.

Some people, myself included, view CORE as a completely different game than PF. Suppose that the warhorn schedule looked like:

Go Fish (The card game)
Players: 4

Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2)
GM: 0
Players: 0

Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11)
GM: 1
Players: 3

Those 4 players playing Go Fish used to play PF. This situation is awesome for those 4 players who found each other and now get to play Go Fish with each other. There's no denying that. They are getting to play their favorite game and they are very happy. And since they like to play PF also, they still have two options.

But the other four players have lost an option. They don't want to play Go Fish. They want to keep playing their favorite game, PF. To them it feels like they have lost an option. Yeah, sure they...

Best of luck to you...

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

The Fox wrote:

Suppose there are 9 of us in this local group (this is actually realistic, I am prepping to run a table for 3 tonight parallel to the table of 4 that my friend is running).

Absent of the CORE campaign, there are two options:
Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2);
Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11).

The nine of us will need to work out who sits where. But at least we have two choices of tables for shuffling butts in chairs.

With the CORE table added, we still have only nine players. So only two tables are going to fire. If one of those is the CORE table, then we have removed an option for those uninterested in playing in that campaign. If someone has already played the scenario in the normal campaign, they will be walking home without a game.

BUT- you have added an option for those who want it.

If you have 9 players and less than 4 want CORE...don't offer it. Do what you have been doing and offer 2 tables of games, and shuffle butts in chairs.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

The Fox wrote:

Follow-up question:

If a wizard has a non-core spell in her spellbook that she learned from another wizard (thus it does not appear as a scroll on one of her Chronicle sheets), can she buy scrolls of that spell?

No...I wouldn't think so. It's not available through the campaign rules, and you don't have it opened up as available through a chronicle, which so far is the only way to expand those options.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Undone wrote:
deusvult wrote:
The Fox wrote:

....

The second table on the schedule (normal mode Wounded Wisp) is less likely to fire.

If I am a player in your area who is uninterested in CORE, then your added table has actually taken an option away from me.

I think that is a legitimate concern.

I understand that this schedule is 3 weeks out, and a lot can change. There are groups that ARE exactly 8 players. Every week they run two tables of 3 players each. CORE will potentially be disruptive to these groups.

If the Core Wounded Wisp table doesn't go off, it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't go off because it was Core.

So, it's not sound valid logic to say Vanilla PFS players suffered the loss of an opportunity by including the Core table in that example.

*edit= it is sometimes hard to keep the difference between sound logic and valid logic straight...

So if one or two people sign up for that or if one GM and 2 players sign up then yes Core took as many as 3 players away from the game at least for the night possibly for longer.

And possibly, if they get to the store and find out they have a split sign-up they talk to each other and work something out about what second game to offer that night? Or, in the current signup, it's still 2 tables going off, and that's what he's had at the location before this...but now with options.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

If it gets some traction locally...dwarven rogue.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorrraine wrote:
Scrolls, potions, and fully charged wands of first level spells are always available and as a result are often not written on chronicle sheets. If a scenario offers one of these with a non-core spell is it ok to add this to the relevant chronicle sheet as an available item? I will of course as the GM to initial this. Can I then buy that item for the character as often as I want? Would this also hold true for non magical items thst are not available in Core?

You can't add additional items to a chronicle sheet for availability. If it's not printed, it's not available.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Jiggy wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.
You can't use Bestiary 2 elementals via SNA or SM in PFS, so I wouldn't see why you could in CORE...the regular Bestiary I agree with 100%
Dunno about those other spells he mentioned, though. Haven't looked.

Oh yeah, you can use polymorph effects to forms from other Bestiaries...I missed that part of the post.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Jiggy wrote:
Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

You can't use Bestiary 2 elementals via SNA or SM in PFS, so I wouldn't see why you could in CORE...the regular Bestiary I agree with 100%

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Ulfen Death Squad wrote:
This may be obvious but if I buy a non core item off a chronicle sheet, like a +2 item, can I upgrade it like in normal or am I stuck with it how I bought it?

Let's take this to one of the other non-reporting issues threads OK?

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Ulfen Death Squad wrote:
So is available gear going to be limited to core as well or will the ult. Equipment be available for the core campaign?

CRB + chronicles access for outside stuff

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

pauljathome wrote:
Undone wrote:


I'm fairly sure if you're relying on a potion which eats two full turns to get out you're going to lose that fight.

Wrong. I've been in at least one scenario where I got out of Black Tentacles via a potion of gaseous form and my character was responsible for us winning the fight.

Being inconvenienced for 2 rounds does NOT automatically equal a death sentence, let alone a TPK. Most of the bad guys can't actually put out huge amounts of damage each round.

Side question: Why 2 rounds? You still have a move action and a standard action while grappled...

Pull potion with one hand (move)
Drink potion (standard)
5' float up (5' step with a fly speed)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Light Armor Proficiency is a trap. You don't need it, unless you're eventually working towards Heavy Armor Proficiency.

I can't understand how +4 AC is a trap feat. Can you explain?

If you can get the ACP to 0 from other measures (mithral, trait, etc.) then there is no penalty for wearing armor you are not proficient in.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
This one uses the term cheese weasel, and this one uses roll playing.

You should read the two posts you cited again. In both cases, the posters placed their comments in a specific context, and in the case of the "cheese weasel" comment, the poster said that he didn't know if he could even exclude himself.

If you are intent on just picking out a word or two or using them out of context, I can't help you.

For one of those posts you are correct. For the other, you are the one who needs to re-read it, because it absolutely was what it was made out to be.

Either that, or maybe explain the "context" that makes it mean something other than what it very plainly says?

Again, you're right on the "cheese weasel" post; I actually remember that one and was going to jump in with a correction, but saw you beat me to it. But it really undermines your position to claim that the other one is in the same category.

I know the second one is a bit harsh...but the poster is also not a native english speaker, and his terminology doesn't always translate perfectly. I give obvious non-native speakers a wider leeway for tone and word choice.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Serum wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Serum wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
Nicholas Milasich wrote:

I would rule that while poorly worded, Shield master is designed to remove the off-hand attack penalty for shield bashing. It does not negate the two-weapon fighting penalty of -2, nor does it negate the power attack, prone, etc. penalties. It's a good enough feat as it is.

What is this?
The context is "while two-weapon-fighting with a shield in the off-hand". That is, -2 for a light shield and -4 for a heavy shield.
Yeah, uh, note that the question was about a post that said it removes the off-hand penalty but not the TWF penalty.
Oh dear. Yeah, there's no such thing as an off-hand penalty that isn't a TWF penalty.

That was my understanding as well...

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Jeff Merola wrote:
Serum wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
Nicholas Milasich wrote:

I would rule that while poorly worded, Shield master is designed to remove the off-hand attack penalty for shield bashing. It does not negate the two-weapon fighting penalty of -2, nor does it negate the power attack, prone, etc. penalties. It's a good enough feat as it is.

What is this?
The context is "while two-weapon-fighting with a shield in the off-hand". That is, -2 for a light shield and -4 for a heavy shield.
Yeah, uh, note that the question was about a post that said it removes the off-hand penalty but not the TWF penalty.

^^This...the only penalty I know of for an off-hand attack is when TWF, so am honestly curious what he means.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
andreww wrote:

So, what do you think will be the main effects on character creation and development of the Core campaign? Who are the winners and losers, what tactics have to change, what key options are no longer available?

I

There are no losers. It's essentially like playing Pathfinder Society in Season One when the CRB was the only Player Book out.

The standard PFS campaign is still out there if you want a cart load of books available for character creation. The core campaign makes winners of those who want something more old school.

It is an everyone wins situation.

*coughs*

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Nicholas Milasich wrote:

I would rule that while poorly worded, Shield master is designed to remove the off-hand attack penalty for shield bashing. It does not negate the two-weapon fighting penalty of -2, nor does it negate the power attack, prone, etc. penalties. It's a good enough feat as it is.

What is this?

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Imbicatus wrote:
Dhjika wrote:
Muser wrote:

Listing sum stuff:

No ioun torches, so light sources become a bit of a hassle. Darkvision is yet more powerful.

Continual Flame can be put on anything and the spell itself is Core.

So continual flame jewelry are still usable

It still has to be re-cast every scenario for a constant GP drain.

You can have one continual flame spell carry over per The Guide still...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
Scavion wrote:

2 and 3 are yes.

Stealth requires movement and a 5 ft step is movement. Or simply making an attack and then using your move also allows for stealth.

You can only stealth after attacking in the same round if you're sniping as far as I can tell...
That is if you DON'T have hide in plain sight. With HiPS you can stealth whenever you want with no special penalty for being observed. Assuming you move, of course, which means you still only get 1 sneak attack per round with it (since you either full attack and use 5ft step for stealth, or move and single attack).

HiPS gets rid of this part of the Stealth issue:

PRD Stealth wrote:

Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

Not this part:

PRD Stealth wrote:

Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber
Scavion wrote:

2 and 3 are yes.

Stealth requires movement and a 5 ft step is movement. Or simply making an attack and then using your move also allows for stealth.

You can only stealth after attacking in the same round if you're sniping as far as I can tell...

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

1 person marked this as a favorite.
poundpuppy30 wrote:
Ok so why not just add Veteran to the top of the chronicle sheet of the veteran player if they are replaying the scenario and he can sit in with regular PFS new players too. So now everyone is happy. So now what is the problem?

REPLAY is NOT what they're trying to fix/solve/expand here at its base.

Simplifying the game and lowering the knowledge barrier for entry is the main target. Your solution does nothing for this part of the equation. Whereas the CORE campaign deals with this, plus gives the veterans an additional chance to play as well...

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Lorathorn wrote:
I do have to ask the obvious question... customization aside, how optimized DO you have to be to survive Pathfinder Society games?

You don't really.

Base characters played well can do very well in PFS.

On the other hand, over-optimized characters can ROFL stomp many scenarios with or without backup.

As long as you built a base balance, you're fine.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber

Yes to 1, No to 2, 3, and 4.

EDIT: 2 is a possibly I guess...if you're in shadows/dim light you can move/stealth before your attack.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

poundpuppy30 wrote:
Don't you need a special feat for to use knowledge on the robots, equipment and weapons in season 6? How will people get that with only core book?

Currently, yes, and they won't. Far fetched fantastical scientific stuff will stay that way it seems...

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

3 people marked this as a favorite.
o0o0Squirrel0o0o wrote:

Why is it that RotR is a 1-18 lvl campaign from start to finish but only credits like 6 lvls for society play.

It makes me alittle upset to run something so wonderful and exspansive just to find out that i wasted my players time with pointless rabble.

If the time was filled with pointless rabble, then yes it was a waste of time. If the time was spent exploring a wonderful and expansive world, then that in itself says it was not.

It's a game. It's about spending time playing and having fun.

You also have to realize, the AP's AREN'T made for PFS. They have started being opened up to PFS players as extra option to play more outside the base scenarios IF they want. You can play it completely as a home game and make whatever design decisions you want and play it completely outside the organized play structure, and STILL get 6 level of credit for PFS characters that haven't been touched once during play.

I really don't understand the derision of the option to play more...

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Zan Greenshadow wrote:

Well...in this case there are specific instructions for how the trap is disabled and it requires use of the altar. The problem is that no range for proximity is specified and references to Alarm are speculative on my part. There's no proximity stated and no dotted outline on the map for that room.

Since bypassing the trigger is basically disabling the trap, then it seems like that would require access to the altar. I guess I'll send a note to paizo about it - or if someone wants to PM me, that's fine too.

Without knowing the specifics we can't really examine and tell if there ever was a clarification or not for that specific case.

In terms of the alarm spell, in general, if used by itself it is not subject to disabling as it is not a trap in of itself...just an ongoing magical effect. If it is part of a trap, then it would be circumvented by whatever DC is given for disabling said trap. How far it takes to set off...depends, some traps are set by other spells as well...

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Snorter wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I hadn't really counted on it being quite this powerful and ruining the adventure quite this much. So now I've got a character that I generally like, that's got non-retrainable investments in something that's just too powerful to be fun.

I thought retraining had been opened up in PFS, so if you do change your mind, you can alter your build, though at a cost.

You may not get the free rebuild you'd get, after an ability is errataed into lower-functionality, but in practice those are less common than they should be, since the official line seems to be that if you can still get some functionality, it doesn't warrant a free rebuild.

You can't retrain traits, which it sounds like are the main part of his investment...

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

trollbill wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
KestlerGunner wrote:

Just a note that the last Exclusive, Day of the Demon, came out Feb 26 2013.

In a month's time, it'll be over two years since an Exclusive was released.
A new Exclusive is well overdue.
bonekeep is the last exclusive to drop. they have been pretty good at dropping 1 per year. besides now all the specials and bonekeep have been given a replay chance with the core campaign.
I don't know why people keep mentioning the Core Campaign changing this any. It doesn't matter how many times you GM Bonekeep, even if you can't keep applying credit to characters it still counts for getting your 5th Star.

Because a lot of people have played Bonekeep already...nobody (probably) has played Bonekeep with their CORE play through yet maybe?

EDIT: So a LOT more potential current players that can play it for credit now...

Re-EDIT: and ninja'd by 2 lousy seconds =p

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Undone wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:


Mis-communicated.
As a GM, I don't believe that all optimizers wish to ruin a game. Almost all players optimize to some extent (including me).
However, I do believe that some optimizers do set out to spoil peoples fun. Which is what I quoted (EDIT: "people who optimize" not "everyone who optimizes").
Ok that's a little different than what was said but what was said really IS the attitude of some GM's (Optimization is evil and ruins the game).

Actually, the bolded part that was said was about a person who intends to ruin the game for others...that doesn't say optimizers, that says jerk. Two completely different things.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

The Human Diversion wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
If you are reported online as dead, that character can not have additional chronicles added to it online and would kick back an error to the person reporting the next scenario. Once you sit and hear the briefing, you count as having "played" the scenario with whatever outcome it may have...barring specific corner case exceptions due to circumstance.

Honestly, if I had a GM who was a d-bag big enough to pull something like that, I'd consider quitting PFS entirely rather than be worried about playing again.

My anecdotal "what-if" scenario is talking about a GM so bad that the entire table gets up and walks away in protest. I haven't encountered anything remotely like that in PFS yet, and don't expect to, but if I did you can bet your last dollar that a Venture Captain or Paizo staff would hear of it. I would think they'd side against a GM that is socially destructive (assuming, of course, the players who got up and walked away were in the right).

If the first happens, then yes, the second part would be the appropriate course of action, because if you are reported dead it would be your only course of action to keep playing that character in Society play.

I also assume you are correct in your assumption that if the table was truly that bad, then the PTB would assist you in resolving the situation amicably.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber
Damanta wrote:


I'm going to play on safe with that and ask the GM up front. RAW it would seem that they don't go prone because you don't make a check and thus can't beat it by 5.

This. It was brought up a few times when a certain beast showed up in a PFS scenario and this was the response we got.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

The Human Diversion wrote:


I'm not sure of this, but I believe PFS is similar in that the chronicle sheet is always the authoritative source, so a GM can threaten a TPK on you, but you can always refuse to accept the chronicle sheet. In addition a whole table full of players reporting a horrible GM would stand a better chance of being ruled in the player's favor by a Venture Officer than the GM's ruling.

If you are reported online as dead, that character can not have additional chronicles added to it online and would kick back an error to the person reporting the next scenario. Once you sit and hear the briefing, you count as having "played" the scenario with whatever outcome it may have...barring specific corner case exceptions due to circumstance.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

I'm not sure what all the backlash is about.

As I understand the rules, if you want to do a non-core character and have played every adventure already there is a solution.

Go through The Confirmation in CORE Only. Get your 1 XP.

Now convert that character to non-core. It can still replay any scenario because it started as CORE Only. Since it is still first level, you are allowed to do a full rebuild.

Seems simple and within the rules. Please advise if I've got something wrong.

If this works as expected, I expect many Confirmation runs in the short term to be converted to CORE Only.

You can play scenarios once in CORE mode and once in NORMAL mode. If you take your CORE character and play him in NORMAL mode, he is now and forever a NORMAL character and plays with all such restrictions as if it started that way.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Nefreet wrote:

How late do the bars stay open over there?

When I lived in Nevada, I got used to them being open 24/7.

When I moved to California, the concept of "last call" made me sad.

Please don't make me sad again ='(

Legal sales stop at 3AM M-S. And midnight on Sunday IIRC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Modules Subscriber
Krell44 wrote:
I thought there was a rule in PFS play that limited the number of controlled critters you could have in play. And yes, I have heard of a Druid I just have never seen one played at the table. Odd.

You can only have one combat companion (animal companion, mount, eidolon) in a scenario for PFS.

This does not limit you from summoning via spells like Summon Monster. Please just be considerate of your tablemates as you already have 2 characters to control on your turn and now are going to add even more. Make sure you have all your stats ready to go for any controlled creature and run the summons as quickly as possible to avoid taking up an inordinate amount of table time is all that's asked.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

For the sake of discussion, I was just trying to create a half HD version of the Bandersnatch for the sake of comparison (Hero Lab doesn't help, since reducing HD is not implemented .. and for the simulacrumissue.. we don't really have concrete rules for that) and even if you take the time to recalculate the attacks (it is losing 12 HD..) unless the creature is attacking an animal companion in plate armor, it will pretty much hit most of the time.

I guess the DM took the time to create a statblock for it, but it only really matters if the party has a chance to deal with it. Two zen archers, maybe a couple of pet classes and or swashbucklers, yeah with a lot of lucky dice rolls, they could beat that creature....of course that just leaves the creator.

It all boils down to this line in the simulacrum spell.

Simulacrum wrote:

Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

In this specific case, the creature would lose BAB, saves, feats and hp - other areas like natural armor and special abilities are not covered...

I've stayed out of this...but special abilities are specifically covered in the part you bolded about the spell. I don't know as a 10HD~11HD creature should appropriately have a permanent spell effect of a 6th level spell...

IMO there are several VERY gray areas about this tactic, and I'll leave it at that.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Gregory Connolly wrote:

I am having trouble with the example, and I don't see my objection anywhere else so I will wade in here.

PC wins initiative, readies an attack if attacked, (maybe gets in position first, I don't know)

BBEG goes next, charges, gets to 5' away, PC attacks and 5' steps away, BBEG can't attack and effectively does nothing but move.

Round 2 is where I am having the huge problem.

BBEG now has a higher initiative than PC because PC acted after BBEG in round 1 lowering his initiative to that of BBEG but acting after on the same initiative.

BBEG full attacks the PC.

PC readies an action to attack if attacked.

All odd rounds are like round 1, all even rounds are like round 2.

So in effect you are trading standard attacks for full attacks to nullify half of the BBEG's actions. Not the worst strategy, but not game breaking either.

Actually, this is backwards. The PC is right ahead of the BBEG in initiative order. Ready actions put you ahead of the person you interrupt. Delaying puts you behind.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I don't audit for spell foci or components, BUT if I happen to remember on the fly that X spell they're casting has a foci or component requirement, then yes they need to have it. A new player, I'll probably let them just buy it right then and there and move on. An experienced gamer is probably not going to be able to cast that spell.

The player is the one choosing their spells. They should be looking up their spells when they do so to make sure they know what they actually do. If they don't actually read their spells when choosing, that really isn't my fault. There is some level of personal accountability in character creation and playing that I expect of players.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

thejeff wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Z...D... wrote:

Like I mentioned earlier, I put everything on the ITS. I also put it on the chronicle sheets to show i have the correct Fame for it. And to keep track of when I bought it.

Personally I would treat it like my arrows and put it on the ITS any way. Put down how many I bought. And scratch out those lovely little boxes next to the item line as I let them fly.

The other method could work. As well. I usually have the GM sign off on a one time use boon. As for other items. Make a note of it in play and wait untill after the scenario to have them GM initial it.

But whatever you personally do, as a GM you would not allow a player to use a 10gp item unless it was specifically mentioned on either the ITS or a chronicle?

Or was I misunderstanding your earlier post?

You were misunderstanding him.

They have to have listed on their character sheet, that they own the shovel.

The gold expenditure tracking will be difficult to find (unless they put it on the ITS or know which chronicle they purchased it on) as it will just be an extra 10gp (probably among a few other extra less than 25gp expenditures).

At some point, we just have to trust people. If its listed on their inventory of items on their character sheet (or on a separate sheet), then I won't make them show me where they actually purchased it.

If it isn't on any sheet, and it has to be purchased by rule (any spell component with a specific listed cost, no matter how small, must be purchased and is not assumed to be owned in the cost of a spell component pouch), then they don't have it.

Well, I agree and that's how I thought it worked, which is why I was surprised with what read to me like a very explicit "It must be on a Chronicle or the ITS" statement.

Even in what he said...it must be on a Chronicle...it's just wrapped in the "gold spent" box as part of the number. That's all I've been trying to say.

I'm not going to go haggle down every expense if I happen to audit or look for a named spell component. I'm going to see that it was on the character inventory, and assume it's been paid for on one of the chronicles as is supposed to be done.

Online here, I was stating for clarity that it needs to be part of the gold spent total on a chronicle even if it's not listed on an ITS as a purchase due to value.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

Andrew Christian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Z...D... wrote:

Like I mentioned earlier, I put everything on the ITS. I also put it on the chronicle sheets to show i have the correct Fame for it. And to keep track of when I bought it.

Personally I would treat it like my arrows and put it on the ITS any way. Put down how many I bought. And scratch out those lovely little boxes next to the item line as I let them fly.

The other method could work. As well. I usually have the GM sign off on a one time use boon. As for other items. Make a note of it in play and wait untill after the scenario to have them GM initial it.

But whatever you personally do, as a GM you would not allow a player to use a 10gp item unless it was specifically mentioned on either the ITS or a chronicle?

Or was I misunderstanding your earlier post?

You were misunderstanding him.

They have to have listed on their character sheet, that they own the shovel.

The gold expenditure tracking will be difficult to find (unless they put it on the ITS or know which chronicle they purchased it on) as it will just be an extra 10gp (probably among a few other extra less than 25gp expenditures).

At some point, we just have to trust people. If its listed on their inventory of items on their character sheet (or on a separate sheet), then I won't make them show me where they actually purchased it.

If it isn't on any sheet, and it has to be purchased by rule (any spell component with a specific listed cost, no matter how small, must be purchased and is not assumed to be owned in the cost of a spell component pouch), then they don't have it.

This.

***** ACG Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Lafayette aka Sniggevert

thejeff wrote:
Z...D... wrote:

As ealier stated if a wizard want to cast a spell like create pit, they need to have the material companant which is a shovel costing 10 gp.

Now the rule does state that you only need to put purchases of only 25gp or more on the ITS. But if it does not show up on any chronicles stating he purchased that 10gp shovel I, as a GM, will not let them cast it.

So the current version of the rules says that purchases of 25 gp or more must be tracked on the ITS, with only a summary gold cost appearing on each chronicle, but purchases of less than 25gp must be listed separately on the chronicle sheet?

And for consumable ones, found and crossed out and initialed by the GM when used?

No...only the gold has to be accounted for on the chronicle in the "gold spent" box. Mark the item on the character sheet and done.

Consumables are tracked by the player, but again, purchase expense must be accounted for on the chronicle (or ITS as appropriate) as a gold expense.

1 to 50 of 2,672 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.