cjtSparhawk's page

Our group has been running through Rise of the Runelords with a kobold for the past few years. (we don't get to meet nearly as often as we like) The woman running the character chose a reared by humans background/trait to fit her story, but I don't think it would have been 100% necessary for the GM. Our party is 2 humans, a halfling, a gnome and a kobold. (we also adopted a goblin NPC from book 1) We used the random backgrounds from ultimate campaign as a framework, but they meshed amazingly well with only a bit of creativeness on our part.

page 35 of the Guild Guide

Level 1 characters may be rebuilt per the rules in Appendix 1: Character Creation. This is not a necessary step to completing a Chronicle sheet after an adventure, but a Chronicle sheet is required in order to confirm the changes. The same is true for retraining, as described below.

So the level 1 changes are like building a character from scratch, then applying the earned chronicle sheets. (so no real need to "sell back" anything.)

Paladin of Cayden Cailean....

I thought about gluing these to the empty cardboard "page" but decided against it.

May I ask you why you decided against it?

I am currently thinking about using card stock backing glued to the original sheets. I do think I am going to steal your printed backing though....

I was thinking of just leaving them in the original boxes however, for compactness.

I did buy a set of each color and size of the new colored bases, anyone else feel like they got FAR too many of the black bases now?

Pathfinder already had quite a few "sub" games aside from its ground combat system. The Chase mechanic, (card or otherwise), Social combat in the form of the deck or the rules in ultimate intrigue. and others..

But I can see a hex base sub game being a huge part of Starfinder since it seems like they want to get the feel of characters working together in shipboard and ground situations to be equally important.

Pathfinder has what is really an good personal combat system, whose relative simplicity balances out it flaws. That same ground combat system should be a great basis for Starfinder's personal combat system.

But now we want to have all the characters to be involved in a ship / multi-passenger vehicle combat. What we don't want this to be is a "OK the pilot and gunners have their fun, and the rest of us grab a snack" time. While we don't want to tie up days of real time playing out a vehicle combat that would take seconds or at most minutes, (much like star fleet battles..) but a simply orthogonal movement system with a single movement score, a single pool of hitpoints, and no real "facing" mechanic, doesn't seem like something that can be expanded to allow every character on a ship have the ability to affect its performance in combat.

The thing that makes pathfinder combat so interesting in many ways different classes and creatures can affect the battlefield. One way of allowing this, without increasing complexity catastrophically, is switching to a hex based movement and facing system. (in some ways manuerver and range calculations are easier on a hex map. Think about how different skill checks like acrobatics (piloting), stealth, or knowledge checks can translate into actions you can make from a starship. How those things might give you more options that just going pew, pew pew and blowing up enemy ships with a die roll or two...

other than direct combat, two examples I can think of..

Think about how a crew could have a navigator plot the movement of an asteroid field, while the astrophysicist can tell you which rocks are better to hide behind, while the pilot is making his check, and someone is playing with your electronics to make you look like just another rock or hole in space..

Or with some space monster is chasing you, your xenologist figures out that is only chases ships to which one of its young somehow got attached. Now you got the pilot doing some fancy maneuvers to not get grabbed and destroyed while flying around the monster so the xenologist can figure out where to put the baby "back", while part of the crew is out on the hull trying to coax the beastie off at the right moment and the engineer is trying to keep power flowing to the right places since the same beastie is "chewing on the power cables"...

(i'll definitely have to check out that other thread..)

(and just for the record, I could be way off base as I haven't made the time to really go through the Starfinder forums...)

Folkish Elm wrote:

Liking the new guide. One question so far which I can't yet see the answer to:-

With GM Star rerolls - is it one reroll per star per scenario or one reroll per star which when used are then gone? Also I assume you can never reroll the same roll more than once?

Surely it's one per star total. I've only got two stars, nearly three, and I can already see it being really hard to deal with a PC who can reroll even thrice per session. Imagine dealing with a character who can reroll six bad saves or confirmation rolls or whatnot every scenario!

Since Re-rolls are given at the scenario level, I would think the bonus GM ones would be so as well. (liking the 4 total for being a 3 star GM) When I GM from now on, I plan to ask people to show their re-roll item, and PFS card at the start of a game, and hand out tokens for the number of re-rolls. Also makes it easier to track when someone gives a re-roll to someone else.

Remember this is a game.. not reality.. Sometimes even I take that "6 seconds" a little too seriously.

But if you are looking for a rule, Speaking up to a few sentences is a Free Action.

Speak

IF YOU MOVE AND AS A STD ACTION PERFORM AN ATTACK, CAN YOU ATTACK WITH BOTH MAIN AND OFFNAHD EAPONS?

No.. in the combat section there is a overriding rule that to ever get more than one attack an round you must be spend a full round action.

Full Attack

Its a really good addition to the Shielded Fighter / Shield Master path especially with Shield Slam in there. Getting to send people trying to get past you to the squishes behind you flying in various directions is just plain fun. And that is even before this: Reach is easily overcome with a supply of potions of enlarge person. (oh.. and pairing with an alchemist giving you fluid form as well...)

Not gonna lie, but Klars should get their own thread for a FAQ/Errata.

Agreed!

By the rule of stacking effective size increases, only the largest applies.

** spoiler omitted **

PRD wrote:

Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you...

PRD wrote:

Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.

Since both shield spikes and bashing increase the weapon's effective size for determining damage (with the spikes additionally changing the damage type) it would seem that they do not stack and are not intended to stack. So it's pointless to have a spiked bashing shield. However, any given GM can rule differently (barring organized play for obvious reasons).

Sigh.. Here we go... AGAIN..

First of all, thank you for putting all the relevant FAQ and rules links in one place.

Everyone chooses to ignore a key thing: A spiked shield is not a magical change in size. Its not an effect. Its the size and way it has always been. A dispel magic is not going to suppress the damage done by the spikes. Someone a long time ago though that following the size change mechanic (since it was already there and could fit in to the existing rules) was a good one to follow to explain as to why a 10gp difference can ultimately do more damage. (and be subject to the most common DR, BTW...)

Note: A large long sword is designed and created a size category larger. Would that mean that a such a weapon would not be affected by lead blades?

Imagine the also endless arguments if they had described a greatsword as a longsword but with increased damage dealt as if the sword were designed for a creature two size categories larger than you.

So for the record. Shield Spikes, Bashing, and Enlarge Person. ALL STACK. One is just the way the item is.. the other is an "as if" magical Size Change Effect, and the other although also magical is an "actual" Size Change Effect. This fits in perfectly with the now fairly old size change FAQ stating you can only only have one magic "as if" size change effect and one magic "actual" size change effect active.

They have not done an errata on it because it DOES NOT NEED IT. They can clarify it by dropping the "as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you." and don't explain why it does more damage.

Now if the "martials can't have nice things" crowd campaign enough to get it changed otherwise, so be it.

Just remind them to change this line on page 25 of the NPC Codex:
Melee +5 bashing spiked heavy shield +31/+26/+21/+16 (2d6+11)

Oh.. and make sure Paizo talks to LWD and get them to get it "right" in Hero Lab too.

Til then my Enlarged Shielded Fighter is going to continue to hit for 3d6+13 With his +2 Adamantine Bashing Spiked Shield. (and yes.. as WEAPON it cost the extra 3k gp)

<mikedrop/>

Peter Stolichnaya Cleric of Cayden Cailean
Charm/Revelry (Chaos)

Inner Sea God removed the Revelry Sub Domain from Cayden Cailean sphere.

Was once a Negotiator / channeler / Buffer

Now just a Negotiator / channeler.

Not really a character death, but definitely the death of a concept. The loss of Good Hope / Intense Celebration was a good dent in his usefulness at PFS tables.

Dirty Trick.

There are a lot of things that don't have weapons you can disarm.

There are a lot of things your trip maneuvers don't do jack against.

There are a lot of things with nothing to sunder.

There are a number of things just too big to grapple without resorting to outside magical assistance.

Bull Rush, Drag, and Reposition mostly just inconvenience your opponents somewhat and rarely do anything more valuable to winning the fight than just hitting them.

But Dirty Trick? Dirty Trick's got an application for every occasion.

Dirty Trick only takes a move action to clear. Falls under inconvenience as well.

I was right there with you until you got to step 4. Detecting as evil is not, in and of itself, a reason for a paladin to kill something. For one thing there are reasons a non-evil being might detect as evil. For another, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

There is an alignment for that... its called neutral.

Not sure it will be a better option than those above since it might be skill point starved, but a sorcerer with the PFS Upstanding (Diplomacy) trait is another option. It will have the correct stat for bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate. Which covers all of the "face" skills. Unless your GM is going to have stat boost items lying around, the number of spells/day makes up for the level of spells, IMHO.

or (ninja ed...) if you can deal with limited casting go bard...

cjtSparhawk wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

cjtSparhawk wrote:

Blakmane wrote:

Sparhawk is incorrect. Intimidating glare/hurtful absolutely lets you get an extra attack on top of your standard action attack. The multiple attacks combat section is specifically talking about the interaction between BAB and full attack/standard actions (see multiple attacks in combat:full attack). If you can get attacks outside of this interaction, as is the case with hurtful, full attack is irrelevant.

*edit*

"for some special reason" is referring to abilities that increase your number of attacks such as multiple limbs on a marilith or being under the effect of a haste spell. It isn't relevant to the discussion above.

Straight from the PRD.

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

You find a feat that directly overrides this by all means go for it.. just no such text within the two feats in question.

Basically its their catch all for all other types of attacks. If you think otherwise go with your own interpretation, but its not mine..

Nor is yours the rule.

And neither is yours... hence the FAQ request.

Mine is the rules

ok..I *Might* be wrong. Give me some links to where the above full attack text gets overridden, and convince me...

FallzQuick wrote:

lets say a ranged touch attack spell like scorching ray at caster level three granting three simultaneous attacks.

As you are making a ranged touch attack as part of the spell, this case would not work.

Note that they state the attack specifically as part of the Ranged Touch Attack Spells and AOOs FAQ:

But burning hands, magic missile and the like would work since you don't make an attack as part of the spell.

cjtSparhawk wrote:

Blakmane wrote:

Sparhawk is incorrect. Intimidating glare/hurtful absolutely lets you get an extra attack on top of your standard action attack. The multiple attacks combat section is specifically talking about the interaction between BAB and full attack/standard actions (see multiple attacks in combat:full attack). If you can get attacks outside of this interaction, as is the case with hurtful, full attack is irrelevant.

*edit*

"for some special reason" is referring to abilities that increase your number of attacks such as multiple limbs on a marilith or being under the effect of a haste spell. It isn't relevant to the discussion above.

Straight from the PRD.

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

You find a feat that directly overrides this by all means go for it.. just no such text within the two feats in question.

Basically its their catch all for all other types of attacks. If you think otherwise go with your own interpretation, but its not mine..

Nor is yours the rule.

And neither is yours... hence the FAQ request.

Sparhawk is incorrect. Intimidating glare/hurtful absolutely lets you get an extra attack on top of your standard action attack. The multiple attacks combat section is specifically talking about the interaction between BAB and full attack/standard actions (see multiple attacks in combat:full attack). If you can get attacks outside of this interaction, as is the case with hurtful, full attack is irrelevant.

*edit*

"for some special reason" is referring to abilities that increase your number of attacks such as multiple limbs on a marilith or being under the effect of a haste spell. It isn't relevant to the discussion above.

Straight from the PRD.

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

You find a feat that directly overrides this by all means go for it.. just no such text within the two feats in question.

Basically its their catch all for all other types of attacks. If you think otherwise go with your own interpretation, but its not mine..

So you are saying no secondary attack at all?

I think this would come under the "or for some special reason" part of the full attack action.

I am sure there are other feats to get around this limitation in some fashion, and the feat description will specifically state it. Just don't know them offhand.

lets say a ranged touch attack spell like scorching ray at caster level three granting three simultaneous attacks.

As you are making a ranged touch attack as part of the spell, this case would not work.

check out the paragraph just above Multiple Attacks as well as that section. Unfortunately the answer is no. Nice try though.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html

They are pretty firm on the "have to spend a full round action" to get more than one attack a round.. which would take out the move action for your intimidate. Though I could see you doing a non attack standard action.

cjtSparhawk wrote:

Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it.

The latter part "and the conditions under which you will take it" is the relevant part. If a GM doesn't automatically interpret you saying "when X happens" as "when my character notices X happening", or make you rephrase it as such, then that is just bad GMing.

I'm not sure you're aware of which section of the rules this is in.

This is not the "GM Interpretation" forum and it's not the "Pretend It Says Whatever You Want" forum; it's the "Rules Questions" forum. Calling someone a bad GM because they read the rules and follow them is a little harsh, don't you think?

Your suggestion to interpret wording that does not exist might be a good one, and I completely understand where you're coming from, but you simply cannot, in a "Rules Questions" forum, accuse people of bad GMing when all they want to do is understand the rules.

So make your house rule. In my post that you quoted I predicted that you would, and that you wouldn't be alone in doing so. But be careful with the "bad GM" labels when YOU"RE the one talking house rules in a "Rules Questions" forum.

In the spirit of not starting a forum flame war, can you please link to rules to define "The Conditions under which you will take it" ?

To answer: Would a successful Stealth check deny readied attacks?

Yes

I was going to quote stealth, breaking stealth, and concealment rules for this question but it really boils down to common sense and the readied action:

Actually I should have stated that a readied action by a character will not interrupt the attack from stealth since stealth only drops after the attack, (hit or miss) But if the attacker appearing from stealth satisfies the ready action's tigger then it would go off immediately there after.

Archaeik wrote:

Would a successful Stealth check deny readied attacks? (a single party member yelling a warning out of turn should effectively shut this tactic down)

That's a good question and the answer has lots of moving parts...

The Stealth rule says that if you are already stealthed, you can attack from stealth and your stealth doesn't break until after your first attack, so for that first attack, the target loses his DEX bonus to AC. Easy enough.

The Ready Action rule says that you go before the action that triggers your readied action and you can interrupt the combatant whose action triggered you. Easy enough.

Putting those together, however, is a bit difficult.

The fighter readies an action to attack any ghostly appendage that reaches out of the wall to hit him. Then it's the ghost's turn and it reaches out of the wall to hit the fighter. The fighter was ready for that so he attacks, interrupting the ghost's attack. He swings (one standard action) and if he kills the ghost, that's the end of it. If not, the ghost gets to continue its turn and attack the fighter who, interestingly enough, still loses his DEX bonus to AC for that first attack.

As awkward as that last bit seems to be, I think that's the RAW. There is nothing in the Ready Action that says a readied action can be used to screw up Stealth, and there is nothing in the Stealth rules that say that readied actions screw them up. There is also nothing I can find that says you cannot ready for an attack you cannot see (frankly, I expected a rule like this but it's not there) and, on the other hand, if the fighter is looking right at the wall, expecting the ghost to attack, when it does, there is no reason for him to be unable to see it.

To answer: Would a successful Stealth check deny readied attacks?

Yes

I was going to quote stealth, breaking stealth, and concealment rules for this question but it really boils down to common sense and the readied action:

Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it.

The latter part "and the conditions under which you will take it" is the relevant part. If a GM doesn't automatically interpret you saying "when X happens" as "when my character notices X happening", or make you rephrase it as such, then that is just bad GMing.

To answer: If it has Greater Blindfight and Shadow Strike (say a Ghost Rog5/Asn10), would it qualify for Sneak Attack while attacking from inside the wall? (Death Attack still requires an actual melee weapon attack)

Yes... that is nasty.. but CR17 opponents are kinda supposed to be nasty, aren't they? Just remember it has to be an attack that does Hit Point Damager to in order to add the sneak damage to it..

As far as whether a spiked shield and effective size changes stack I think will boil down to if you consider "as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger" to be a "size changing effect". The FAQ change covers only size changing effects. My logic says it is not. It is the way the spiked shield is designed. It is not a change. It is not an effect. Without reforging the shield, its not like its going to "change" back.

Starglim wrote:

They never did. Bashing is a shield enhancement that can be applied to a light or heavy shield. Shield spikes are not a shield and even if they were, they are not either of the types allowed.

That is the common misconception. That the spikes are somehow separate from the shield ( or armor) The spikes make it both a shield and a martial weapon at the same time, (hence the spiked shield entry in the weapon chart, not shield spikes) with the same pool of +5 to enhancements and +5 to Special abilities to split over weapon and shield categories. Yes +2 armor and +3 hit/damage is possible (as well as the maximum enhancement bonus) or until you spend a lot of feats to get to shield master and get to use the shield armor enhancements as weapon hit/damage enhancements as well. The existence of that feat progression only makes sense if there is one pool.

Don't get me started on the abuses of having the extra slots to place magical abilities that having the spikes be separate implies. Everyone would be walking around in spiked armor AND shields.

I wrote this without re-reading the armor spikes section again. Apparently armor spikes are separate, but shield spikes are not.. Mea culpa. The wording is not consistent between the two.

They never did. Bashing is a shield enhancement that can be applied to a light or heavy shield. Shield spikes are not a shield and even if they were, they are not either of the types allowed.

That is the common misconception. That the spikes are somehow separate from the shield ( or armor) The spikes make it both a shield and a martial weapon at the same time, (hence the spiked shield entry in the weapon chart, not shield spikes) with the same pool of +5 to enhancements and +5 to Special abilities to split over weapon and shield categories. Yes +2 armor and +3 hit/damage is possible (as well as the maximum enhancement bonus) or until you spend a lot of feats to get to shield master and get to use the shield armor enhancements as weapon hit/damage enhancements as well. The existence of that feat progression only makes sense if there is one pool.

Don't get me started on the abuses of having the extra slots to place magical abilities that having the spikes be separate implies. Everyone would be walking around in spiked armor AND shields.

The answer is no, because there is nothing *TO* stack. A spiked shield is a weapon of a certain size in its own right, not a change in size in any way. (see table 6-4 CRB, it has its own listing.) The fact that it is described in fluff text as deals damage as if it were designed for one size category larger is immaterial. There is no effect being applied at that point. A spiked Heavy Shield as a medium weapon is listed as 1d6 damage.

It somewhat negates the "cheese" (if that is the true core of your complaint) of getting to wield the "1 size larger weapon" without having to pay some feat or magical cost, by changing the damage type to piercing which is the most often blocked by various DR.

You apply the single best "Effective" size increase (ie bashing), to get to 2d6, and then apply the single best "Actual" size increase (ie enlarge person) to work your way to 3d6 damage, per the FAQ.

um... Maaaaster?!?

Very Nice job!

Anyone buying a <insert class> kit needs to adjust.

Pathfinder's Kit it is then. :)

The Fourth Horseman wrote:

TBH, I'm concerned about this.

How many players and GMs are going to walk away from regular PFS to play and run in Core Campaign?

We don't know what the overall effect will be, but I am concerned about Paizo possibly splitting the player and GM base. I guess we'll see.

Likely as intangible a number as the number of people who stop playing PFS due to perceived power creep :)

I for one, welcome our new Core Overlords.

I am very concerned about the negative impact this will have as well. No change has only a positive impact. There is always at least some negative impact while adjusting to the change.

As a player and GM in an area whose player base seems to be shrinking at least partially due to players with limited gaming time leaving PFS for the wider and more in depth options a GM might allow in an adventure path or other campaign, potentially splitting the player base again might end up killing off society play entirely in this area.

This is also going to make accommodating any player that shows up with a legal character a bit harder. "Sorry Joe even though we haven't seen you in 6 months, and you really want to play your lvl 5 Cavalier again, we only have core games tonight. Do you want to play a pregen?" Which also means there will have to be a set of pregens marked "core play approved".

Overall I think this is the start of a good idea. The ease of GMing a simpler table and the less overwhelming options for new players are pluses. However I see the strict table division as a deal killer in most areas, especilly who are lucky to get only a table or two running on a regular basis. Ultimately right now a "core" game seems like a bragging rights thing, kinda like the few season 5 scenarios that had a hard mode, but no real benefit for doing it over regular play.

What no Mockingfey? Sigh... Disappointed Illusionist...

Was it intentional to remove the revelry subdomain from Cayden Cailean? Or does the entry from champions of purity still hold true? Just asking since the current (9.3) hero lab data file thinks its invalid now.

Just bumping this hoping to get an answer. It seem just that the revelry entry didn't make it into the chart at the front on champions or purity, so also got missed when that one was used as the basis for inner sea gods... Just seems like whose REVELRY is the reason he became a God would catch that subdomain...

Was it intentional to remove the revelry subdomain from Cayden Cailean? Or does the entry from champions of purity still hold true? Just asking since the current (9.3) hero lab data file thinks its invalid now.

Just a question for the staff: Why do some seasons use the format #[season][hyphen][scenario #] and others use #[season][dash][scenario #]? It makes it kinda hard to search by numbers for what scenarios you have completed. Especially since dash is not on a standard keyboard.