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

TwilightKnight's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur. 4,111 posts (4,185 including aliases). 12 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 14 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Beware the clicking of FAQs, lest you be locked into an interpretation you disagree with.

Within the context of Pathfinder as a whole, I disagree. I can rule anyway I want at my table regardless of what the rules or the designers say. It would not be the first time I housed-ruled something almost a complete opposite to what the "official" rules stated. If this was the only option to play, then most rules arguments, IMO are just exercises in gaming banter, for personal enlightenment, or for additional perspectives.

However, my focus is with regards to PFS specifically. IMO, table variation regarding the implementation of vague rules that govern actions is different than those that directly govern character building. In the former, one can just perform other actions rather than the one the GM will adjudicate differently than the way you want. However, the latter can actually invalidate an entire character making it [virtually] impossible to play. That is why, IMO, this matter needs some FAQ assistance even if that is not the ruling you want. At least then, you can be assured of consistency from table to table.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Grandfathering any PC that can't freely rebuild as of the date of the change (essentially 1 played session at 2nd level), is not a "grace period".

You can call it whatever you want, grandfathering, grace period, whatever, (I'm not going to argue the definition of catch phrases) the fact remains, they considered the options and extending the time to enter the PrC is not currently being reconsidered. The suggested alternate course of action might sound great to you and its other supporters, but it is clearly not enough to make Mike/John reconsider their current position, and after all the recent activity, they do not seem interested in commenting further, otherwise I expect they would have by now. This is clearly a "hot" topic after all.

Look, we can banter back and forth, but in the end, at least for the foreseeable future, the decision has been made. I encourage people to contribute other solutions/ideas that they feel would be an improvement on the current ruling, but there really is no point in continuing to yammer on about the same solution over and over.

And I just don't understand the apparent and incessant need some people [generally speaking] have to be addressed personally by Paizo staff.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
After the first couple of days of nerdrage about the general FAQ change, the vast majority of the requests for comments have been asking about one thing, extended grandfathering. As we got into above, that is one thing that they have not said a single word about. All it would take to stop all this is a single direct comment about why or why not for that specific proposal.

Except it won't stop there and we all know that. Give a reason, you get a counter reason. Give another reason get another counter reason and so on and so on, ad nauseam. The bottom line is you cannot please all the people all the time.

It is clear that Mike/John have not seen an argument compelling enough to make them reconsider the current plan else they would have responded by now. They have said more than once, this is the ruling as it stands.
The current plan includes a grandfather exception allowing those who already have the PrC through early access to maintain it. What is being asked now is to create/extend a grace period such that those intending to enter the PrC early, but have not yet done so, to be able to do it despite the rules change. That is not a grandfather clause. They provided a contributing reason why a grace period was not created. Some just don't like the reasoning and continue to argue the point.
As I said, there is nothing wrong with continuing to debate the topic and develop additional possible solutions. They may even reconsider in the future. But, at this point, the thread progressively feels more about "we disagree with your ruling, have formulated a better (in our opinion) plan, and demand that you respond." That aspect of the thread is very childish IMHO and not likely to garner a response.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

thejeff wrote:
Did Mike chime in on this thread?

He did not specifically post in this thread, but since it is at least the third thread concerning this topic, and he did comment in at least one other one, I don't think its fair to say that since he (or John) have not commented, means they are not listening. They do have the greater job of administering to the campaign after all and new content, books, rules, other threads, need to be addressed in addition to this one.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

trik wrote:
People think it's a bad decision. They have every right to voice that. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't talk about things they disagree with?

I hope that is not the intention or people's understanding. There is nothing wrong with discussing the rules and making suggestions you think would be better. However, this thread like the others seems to have moved from that to some level of demand for a response from Mike/John. Their track record has been, for quite some time, that they listen to the comments provided by the community and consider them when making decisions. They discussed this issue at length and decided on the course of action. It also appears they were continuing to follow the various threads on this topic for some time, but it appears they have not read anything that convinced them to change the initial ruling. The seemingly incessant demand for them to comment further is unnecessary and might border on the insulting. Dunno. Surely you/we can continue to discuss the merits of alternative rules without the demand that Mike/John acknowledge every new suggestion, can't we?

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew, the general consensus among the people impacted are that, as written, those PrCs are not really viable. A delay does "ruin or destroy" them, because of the difference in what you get out of it.

To be fair, the "general consensus" only really exists here in the forums where the loudest voices are in actuality a very small minority of the community. I do not wish to dismiss their comments that the PrCs are bad, they are entitled to their opinion, just to say that they are plenty viable in context of the entire game, not just the part that crunches numbers. There is more to gaming than "winning" and there are enough players who have played the PrCs in their original form, enjoyed them, and were effective characters to make the notion that they are unplayable (as many seem to suggest) to be nothing more than a personal opinion and well short of the "fact" that many indicate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Maybe what we need is a "FAQ/question" thread in PFS that gets questions like these with the "official houserule" for PFS. And that those are in effect until an actual FAQ comes that's different.

That's a good sentiment, but Mike has a habit of not ruling on something that is a core rule as opposed to a PFS specific one. He does not want to get caught making a ruling, even one limited to PFS, that could be contrary to the intention of the core rules. He would rather leave the status quo (table variation) and leave the rules clarifications to the design team.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
Chengar Qordath wrote:
BadBird wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:
Actually it does not say "all," only "other restrictions." Is that supposed to be read "all," "some," "many," "other restrictions as defined," etc?
'Other limitations' is by nature inclusive. If we go down that road where 'other' isn't inclusive, then we need an FAQ to tell us whether every single other possible limitation is intended to work with it or not.

Indeed. I would assume it was written that way precisely because they wanted it to remain as open and broad as possible, to avoid any issues with needing to cover every single thing that armor category might limit (including things that hadn't been written yet).

Personally, I would assume the intention was to cover any limitations that aren't explicitly excluded (such as proficiency).

Or it could mean they did not want to open it to "all" other limitations not knowing what would follow and left it to additional individual rules listings to define if they were inclusive or not. Its not like simply adding the word "all" to the text would have impact the cost of the book or anything, but it would certainly clarify the intent. It's easy to argue that was an intentional omission.

One thing I think we all need to remember when trying to parse the technicalities of the words is that the rules are not necessarily written using precise, technical language. The designers have said they wanted to avoid the game reading like a college text book. So, sometimes, the inflections and grammatical word relationships are not specifically accurate (from a technical writing perspective). This leaves it to us, the reader, to try and discern the intent (RAI). It is further complicated by the fact that many rules are intentionally written vague so gamers can interpret it however is best for their own games. This all leads to table variation, which IMO is a good thing. However, it becomes problematic in campaigns like PFS where consistency is intended. Granted, Paizo does not "owe" us an FAQ entry for every request the community has, but sometimes its nice.

Considering the number of posts in this thread vs. the number of FAQ clicks, a little help from the community would be useful.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
Trogdar wrote:
How is ALL LIMITATIONS EXCEPT PROFICIENCY UNCLEAR?

Actually it does not say "all," only "other restrictions." Is that supposed to be read "all," "some," "many," "other restrictions as defined," etc? Often times, when rules are not clearly all inclusive, it is left for the GM to adjudicate the vagueness. How expansive "other limitations" goes is the issue and why there are sooo many ways to interpret the rule from "all other limitations" to "other limitations as indicated."

An FAQ would certainly be helpful. Even if you personally think the rule is clear, it would help if everyone clicked FAQ in the initial post. In your home games, you are free to interpret it however you want so how really cares if anyone agrees with your interpretation. However, in community games like PFS, it would be nice not to have to argue your interpretation with the GM, organizer, or players every time because you interpretation is different than theirs.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having 5-08 The Confirmation and moreso 6-10 The Wounded Wisp prepped is always a good idea since those are both intro scenarios and available for credit replay. Anyone can sit and play them which obviously makes for excellent backup material.

Also, we had a rather large demand for the (Silverhex) Quests last year and due to logistical issues a lack of prepped GMs to run them. We are unsure when the six new quests will be available (probably not until GenCon) but they would be good choices to prep as backup. They are essentially since encounter quick-plays that link together for a larger story, so prep is minimal and last year we provided the materials (minis, maps, etc) although there is no guarantee that will happen again.

Other options would be the Beginner Box scenarios. We always have a good number of new players and people who just wander into the ballroom looking for something to play. They run rather quickly and like Quests, don't require a huge amount of prep. We provided materials for these last year as well, but again, no guarantee that will happen again.

These are just suggestions, of course. I'll leave it to Mike to make any specific recommendations for alternate material should your assigned event not run.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ill_Made_Knight wrote:
Wow, no race boons this year.

Maybe, maybe not...

Quote:
A special Pathfinder Society boon useable for either the Adventure Card Guild or Roleplaying Guild

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is my pleasure to announce the promotion of two new VL in Central Illinois...

Eric Ives, VL of Champaign-Urbana, has been doing a great job organizing games primarily at Armored Gopher Games in Urbana, IL. He is a long time player/GM and a fixture at local conventions. His passion and dedication to catering to the needs of his players and GMs is inspiring.

David Frahm, VL of Bloomington-Normal, has also been an excellent community leader primarily at Gryfalia Games in Bloomington, IL. Until his presence we had little to no organized play in the Bloomington area. He has taken it upon himself to get players to gather in one place and not have to drive to surrounding areas to play. Additionally, he is co-organizing the PACG.

Welcome to the Central Illinois regional team!

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

A long and distinguished reign has come to the end :-(
Robyn, we will miss your leadership and passion. Wishing you all the best!

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Wraith235 wrote:
only request I have is to make the update Red on the FAQ page with a Date so that its a little more clearly spelled out

Ummm, actually it is...

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Exguardi wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no evidence has been provided that there are characters being created that are too powerful

Many player/GMs would argue there is plenty of evidence and the designers are not obligated to explain their decision. Perhaps they feel it was just the wrong interpretation of RAI in the first place, or maybe they did some play-testing and discovered it for themselves, or maybe with all the new material that has been released since the original FAQ was made it has progressed to far into overly powerful.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Jiggy wrote:
Fixed that for ya. ;)

For the Wizard* class, meh. Looks like all you lose is a couple of bonus feats and in return, get (nearly) full spell progression.

A slightly higher cost for Cleric* having to give up additional channel dice and a second domain power, but considering that spellcasting is widely considered the most power aspect of the game, getting dual-progressing spell charts more than makes up for it.

*of course not the only available options, but the benchmarks nonetheless

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

If we only had to take one level in an alternate class in order to progress on both spell charts simultaneously, I'm sure we could all make that work

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Using that logic, why not just make mystic theurge "ability to cast both arcane and divine spells"? Then anyone could play one starting at level three. Would that make the class "not suck" as many seem to indicate?

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deussu wrote:
you dare to reverse a ruling knowing it would result in many many angry posts

Technically they didn't have anything to do with it. It was a decision made by the game designers. Mike/John just decided to stick to the intent that PFS follow PFRPG as closely as possible and decided how to best incorporate it into PFS. Its important that players understand the difference.

But your sentiment is not lost :-)

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Exguardi wrote:
stuff

Perhaps so. Carry on...

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Exguardi wrote:
I'm hoping to create a compelling argument here that could counteract the potential intense sadness of a decent amount of players...wait a bit on that until we've hashed this out

I don't think there is any cause for this since...

Michael Brock wrote:
this is the decision that the PFS team has made and is what we are going with

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I also love how some people who play PFS, namely those who are venture officers, got warning that this was coming down. The argument that this is fair because nobody had notice coming from someone who admits to having notice is rich.

Considering that VO are largely in their position because they are trusted not take unfair advantage of said knowledge (ala inside trading) this is a non-issue. Somewhere, someone has to be able to discuss upcoming rules changes and the impact on the community. Even Mike and John play/GM this game. Should they not be given advance notice of material and/or changes because of it?

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

sarah_supreme, there's a HUGE difference between someone who has played a character for countless dozens, perhaps hundreds of hours having to lose or retrain their entire character, and someone who has not played at all, but wants to do something that is now, not legal. Remember, no one is blocking you from playing those characters, its just that you won't have early access to the PrC anymore.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Roberts wrote:
But my question is was it really ever a "loop hole" to begin with the FAQ was specifically made for the purpose of using SLAs to qualify for things?

Maybe it depends on your interpretation of "loophole" and whether or not it carries a negative, accusatory connotation or is just a term used to describe something that many think was a mis-representation of the rules and should have never existed in the first place.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

John, might be a good idea (if its not already done) to add your comment/s to the sticky thread. It might take some time for this rules reversal to make its way through the community

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

Is it a website glitch that shows I am subscribed to this product line yet the last item to ship was City of Secrets #6 and the next one is Origins #2-Kyra?

My February subscription order did not include Origins #1-Valeros. Should I expect it to arrive with the March order? If so, its not listed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

'cause that's not sarcastic or passive-aggressive at all *sigh

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Why miss anything? Its not like CORE is taking options away. NORM is still here and I suspect will continue to be the dominate campaign.

OTOH, when I do play CORE, I will certainly miss the huge array of traits you can select to really customize your character's background.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

gnoams wrote:
All that's missing is some paladin falling.

Head's up!

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Do you have the source? I do not recall that one. In fact it is an issue that arises from numerous domain powers and class abilities that emulate spells. There does not seem to be anything definitively supporting or refuting either side of the argument.

And not to be a nit-picker, but SKR is sort of known for repeated rule flipping, and often his quoted comments are from many years ago. With all the additional material released and new rules that often conflict with existing ones, I'm not sure how much stock can be placed in his comments.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Additionally, there are arguments saying that there is a disctint difference between gaining an SLA that emulates a spell effect and actually getting the spell. Many will argue that having Copy Cat is not the same as having Mirror Image and thus would not qualify you for the early entry.

For this reason and the one above, expect table variation.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
killing the threat instead of healing will consume less resources and be more effective

That's not the the only way to play the game.

Undone wrote:
They're not capable of performing a unique or important role in the party

And I strongly disagree. This seems to be a very narrow way to view the game. You seem to indicate either your character can do something that no one else can, or can do it better than everyone else, or they are not effective.

Undone wrote:
In what way does having 2 additional skills make them better EVER at skills? Skills are equal for all classes except the rogue has a whopping 2 more in exchange for being garbage in combat.

First, I never said the were necessarily better at skills. With generally more skills than other classes, they tend to be more versatile being proficient with a wider range of skills as opposed to say a martial who may be good at 2-3 things and such at the rest. Versatility in a game with a very wide range of skill challenges has great value. Many of PFS combat has been avoided through skills and I have seen plenty of scenarios where no combat broke out at all. That would seem to indicate skills are much more valuable then you indicate.

Just because you don't like the challenge of playing a rogue tactically to maximize their DPR through effective use of sneak attack, stealth, etc. does not make them garbage.

Undone wrote:
This is neither true nor is SnB a benchmark to shoot for.

Oh, so sword and board is "BadWrongFun" now too? I guess the only "acceptable" form of martial combat is a THW with power attack, weapon focus, and specialization. *sigh*

Undone wrote:
They're extremely far behind TWF ranger.

I completely disagree. I have seen plenty of rogues, especially ones with TWF easily out DPR a ranger.

Undone wrote:
Other stuff

All of your arguments regarding healers, rogues, etc. all boil down to one glaring issue...you evaluate the effectiveness of a character strictly from their optimization. Sorry, but there are plenty of players who play these types of characters quite effectively and have plenty of fun doing it, all without burdening the other players at the table. It is clear YOU don't like to play these characters, but that is a far cry from them being "garbage" or "bad"

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

I think I'll start with either a dedicated healer (cleric) or a straight rogue. One, because I haven't played either one in PFS yet, and two, because a lot of people keep trying to tell me they suck as options and I think they are wrong.

However, CORE kinda gives you a reason to try a PrC. They tend to be a slightly less effective option vs. base classes, but without the craziness of all the Ultimate/Advanced/Splat books, the difference is less of an issue. I expect to see a lot more Eldritch Knights, Mystic Theurges, Dragon Disciples, Duelists, and Arcane Tricksters in CORE than I've seen in NORM. And in nearly seven years of PFS, I have yet to see a single Arcane Archer, but with CORE, I'm almost certain I will, even if I have to play one :-D

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've never agreed with the "damage outpaces healing" argument. On a point for point basis, sure, damage will likely come in faster than healing can cure it, but we don't have to cure it all immediately. All the healing has to do is delay the time it takes a character to drop long enough for the PC's damage to take out the enemy (who rarely has effective healing options). By combining healing with an advantage in action economy, the PCs have a huge advantage over their enemies.

If an enemy requires say 2-3 successful hits to drop a PC, and the healer can extend than to 4, 5, or more hits with the use of healing, that is a win. Any reduction in the effective DPR of the baddies is a win. Sure, its not 100% effective (bad player rolls vs. good GM rolls) but nothing is. I would never poo-poo a dedicated healer in my party whether it was CORE or not.

IMHO, the argument against healing because damage outpaces it is a weak one taken from a perspective (blinders on) lacking the entire picture.

As far as rogues, I've never seen one played that was a burden on the rest of the party. They can be quite effective out of combat with plenty of skill options and trap spotter is super effective unless you are the type of mechanical player that never takes a step without performing yet another in a long and game-slowing string of perception (search) checks. They may not be on par with straight martial classes for DPR, but if played tactically, they can be just as effective as a TWF ranger, or a sword and board paladin. If you're comparing a rogue's combat effectiveness to that of a barbarian or fighter, you're unreasonable. That's like comparing a traditional bard's DPR to a sorcerer(blaster). Its obvious who will generally win, but given good gameplay by the player, there is no reason the PC cannot be just as effective.

If you judge the game simply by the math and the mechanical aspects, then I am sad because the game is a lot more than just numbers on a page and dice rolling. For many of us, the game is ultimately fun even without uber-opto-min/max characters and we do not have to curb-stomp every encounter whether combat or otherwise in hopes of "winning" a game without any winners or losers.

Never forget the "hidden" fourth tenet of PFS...

Explore! Report! Cooperate! HAVE FUN!

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

I really don't care if a player wants to withhold info like class, feats, magic items, etc., but you owe it to the other players to at least tell them what to expect from your character. Are you a martial? An offensive spell caster? A healer? A support caster? Skillful? Whatever it is the players at the table are entitled to know what you bring to the party so everyone can interact appropriately and have reasonable expectations. In fact, such information is often better than class, etc since describing yourself in mechanical game terms could lead to misunderstandings. As has been expressed above, not all bards are skill-monkey, diplomats who buff during combat. I would hate to find out in the middle of combat the party cleric has channel negative rather than positive energy.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congratulations William. Been a long time since I saw the ol' crew. Miss you guys!

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Personally, I think that is a stretch and the FAQ has clean intent. However, in the attempt for clarity, I have forwarded this issue to those who may be able to shed some light on the intent and perhaps a more clear version of the FAQ will result.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Yes, yes, "X is not evil" does not imply "X is not a code violation," and the list of dishonorable acts is not all inclusive, but that does not answer the question. Taking the evil out of the spell, leaves just a spell whose use is to simply heal wounds. How is that in any way not acting honorably and therefore a violation?

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

If the spell (for purposes of PFS) is not an evil act, then how can it be considered a violation of code? If you use a spell, that is not evil, to heal a injured party, including the paladin, how is that not acting honorably?

--EDIT--this discussion is hard to adjudicate because fundamentally I agree that using Infernal Healing SHOULD be a code violation, except that PFS provides the loophole

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In most cases, if you have to ask "Would this be offensive" it probably will be to at least some number of players. Therefore, its best not to play it outside of your own local group (if at all) where you already know their level of acceptance and comfort.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Certainly so, but the issue is what constitutes a violation of the code. Most would posit that without the evil descriptor on the spell, there is nothing inherent that would cause "Infernal Healing" to be a problem. So in non-PFS play, the GM can easily make the call because evil is what it is. However, within PFS the spell was specifically called out as not influencing alignment, therefore it is legal for their use.
As I said before, I personally do not think a paladin should benefit from the spell, but I stop short of penalizing one who does because the campaign leadership has decided to allow it.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Just as a point of reference...

CRB wrote:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

I guess you can make the argument that the only thing that will cause a paladin to lose their class features is if "she ever willingly commits an evil act." The following paragraph does not actually equate those violations with the penalty from the first paragraph, although I think the relation is implied.

Someone mentioned poison use, but that is a non-issue since it is specifically called out in the code as bad. And let's not even start with what an "innocent" is with regards to the last part. In PFS where PvP is not allowed, it is a hard thing to adjudicate what someone kills a restrained prisoner in the presence of a paladin

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I can very much understand categorizing the use of evil-aligned spells as failing to act with honor in most cases.

In general that is true except that in this case the FAQ specifically calls the spell out as not evil...

PFS FAQ wrote:
For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.

Its hard to make a case for it being a problem when campaign leadership has specifically said its okay

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The society has more than its fair share of shady characters and ne'er do wells and I really like that about them.

I'm not making a value judgement, just stating the fact. PFS has created an exception to the "normal" rules for how evil is intended to work in the game. Whether or not you or I like the additional character options it creates does not negate the fact it creates unintended conflict regarding adjudication of things like paladins and infernal healing

BigNorseWolf wrote:
It exists in PFS because unless we come up with some sort of dark side points system to track there's no real way to tell if the infernal healing is an occasional dip into the deep end of the alignment pool or if someone's gleefully leaping in to the cry of "caaanooon baaaaaal".

If you found it on a scroll as a one-off maybe, but when you're talking about obtaining wands with 50 charges or taking it as a spell in your spellbook or limited resource list (spells known), its hard to convinced anyone it won't see repeated use.

Its relatively clear the intent with regards to hard-core characters like paladins. They are not permitted to participate in or commit evil acts. Per the designers, Infernal Healing, as an evil-aligned spell, confers evil on its user. If said user is a paladin, then they have violated the code. There appears to be only one consequence for that. I suppose an argument could be made that being the recipient of the spell does not impose such a penalty, but I think most would disagree. Anything that taints you with evil, even temporarily, such as the IH spell would be taboo in the vast majority of games.

As I said before, we need to look at this from the prospective of the character not the player. If the character is as strict to their perceived beliefs as intended, they would not use an evil spell, be the recipient of said spell, or look for ways to skirt the line of permissibility so as to perform questionable acts and get away with it. They would look upon such things as aberrant and a personal failure to their hope of reaching purity of soul or true consciousness or whatever zealotry they espouse to.

This is all moot of course because PFS has created the loophole allowing paladins to use and or receive Infernal Healing. However, just because my paladin CAN do it, does not mean I will chose to play it that way. YMMV

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

Um, no they're not; "Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal." PRD

The actual quote about what the sheaths can hold is, "The sheath can hold one forearm-length item, such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts."

Well then the prd is incomplete...

CRB wrote:

Rods are scepter-like devices that have unique magical powers and do not usually have charges. Anyone can use a rod.

Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs due to their hardy construction.) These sturdy items have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27.

Draw your own conclusions and expect table variation

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its to stop the lawful neutral fighter or wizard from getting booted over to lawful evil after spamming their favorite devil or undead inspired spells.

Then maybe those character concepts are not right for PFS? Certainly the core rules as described would mean the designers intend for that shift to happen if the character intentionally and repeatedly used an evil aligned spell such as infernal healing. The confusion is created when we create a loop hole in PFS that does not jive with what the designers intended.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

GinoA wrote:

So, how about my Chelaxian, Oath Against Chaos, paladin of Abadar?

How about the fact that he'll be taking Hell Knight levels starting in 2 XP?

From my perspective he'd have no problem with IH being cast on him. It's a right and proper application of infernal power, just like they do back home. Further, Abadar has no particular problem dealing with Infernal beings. Why should his paladin?

I'm considering having this character fall and transition to LN as a matter of character development, but I don't think accepting IH would be a contributor.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just know that there are many who would disagree. Be prepared for table variation.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

The Fox wrote:
Stuff

I don't necessarily disagree. I was just trying (clearly failing) to express my understanding of those who have the same opinion as Arnvior.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Technically all the pregens are tied to a faction. The default assumption is they are Grand Lodge. If pregens are used as primarily intended, for new players to join the community, it is unlikely they are familiar enough with the faction system to chose one appropriate for their own eventual character. Remember the point of the pregen is to give a n00b a chance to sit down and play with minimal rules knowledge. The point is for them to learn the basics of gameplay (combat, skills, class abilities, spellcasting, etc) so they can create their own character and thereafter slowly become more familiar with society play. IMO, launching right into factions is counter-productive to the basics and creates an unnecessary additional burden for a new player.

And with respect to level 4/7 pregens, I assume those are experienced players using the pregen as a stop-gap while their "real" character gains more experience. In those case, the player probably should be playing the pregen using the faction of the character the credit is going to be applied to. If the level 4/7 is being used by a n00b, its already not an ideal circumstance and there is even more reason not to burden them with additional rules not specifically necessary for them to play.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
It depends on where the code comes from. If your code is something entirely made up by yourself, then you're a chaotic character. If the code you swear by comes from a nation, an order, or any kind of group that's outside of yourself, then it's lawful.

Perspective and opinion. I happen to disagree.

1 to 50 of 4,111 << 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.