|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Reference please? Creating potions (and I would think Oils would be the same) only specifies that it cant be a 'Personal' spell used.
So you guys think the party getting a +1 longsword, selling it for half price (somewhere near 1150gp), buying 23 CLW potions with that, using them all so they dont have to expend any charges from their own healing expendables, and then NOT docking them the gold for buying 23 CLW potions during the scenario is reasonable?
Just wanting to be clear, but if you are saying 'Yes, thats reasonable', then I disagree. :P
Didnt realize you were talking about yourself. That changes the entire context of the post. Apologies. :)
Many scenarios call out the stairs in them specifically to be difficult terrain.
Also, I dont know whether you meant it to come off this way or not, but your 'one judge corrected' statement comes off rather snobbish. As if you feel the need to correct a GM with every possible chance.
David Bowles wrote:
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about errors, not tactical decisions.
If you mean what I posted, my post was not in response to your accusations. It was just tips for other GMs who might run it in the future. :)
Yea, if the mistakes you called out (tier 6-7 number of guys or stats being used at 3-4), then that could have a huge impact on the game. :/
I would assume that (and hence my line of questioning) that #4 should be totally acceptable. The unfortunate side affect would be losing that gold on everyone's chronicle sheets at the end of the scenario, though.
Since anyone can pitch in gold to help the cost of bringing a character back to life, this is fine*.
*Expect table variation. Some GMs wont allow you to spend the gold you will heave earned through that point of the scenario til the end of the scenario. What I mean is, some might say that since you havent gotten the chronicle yet, you dont have the gold for it, so you cant Raise the dead person now, but you can raise them at the end of the scenario.
As for the last part, I would argue why not, IF the assumption is that the characters are effectively purchasing the item and it will be marked off on the sheets (probably in a shared fashion if the results of the sale were shared) at the end of the scenario?
At this point, the answer is simply 'because the Guide says so'. You are free to argue against it or try to make arguements for why it should be changed, but until it does, I wouldnt argue the point with your GM.
This isnt covered in the Guide, so its technically not illegal. It is an interesting idea though. Im curious to see what other peoples thoughts are.
At first glance, Id say it would count as spending gold during the scenario same as if you had spent the gold you already had at the beginning. So if the party wanted to buy a Wand of CLW, youd have to find out who was actually making the purchase and they would have to either drop the 2PP or the 750gp at the time.
I suppose an arguement could be made for the party buying and selling it together, but that just makes it complicated to figure out how much each member of the party actually earns at the end of the scenario.
I advise against doing this. Just go into your mission prepared or with enough gold to buy what you need on the fly. :/
'Jerk GM moves' AKA 'Solid tactics'
Rooms 4 and 7:
Assuming the party doesnt set off the traps in Room 4 on their own before moving on, do your best to force the party back into that room and in-range of the trap when start the fight in Room 7. The rat demons should be aware of the trap and what is does...and just so happen to be immune to the damage it deals. The party moves back in fear, and one of them teleports back into Room 4 onto the dais, and then 5ft steps off, setting it off.
Have the dogs bullrush the party into the negative energy line.
Gark the Goblin wrote:
Ah, thank you. It's not exactly shiny-new though - I've played three scenarios with it, not including the two pregen ones. I'm not sure I still have the pregen chronicle sheets (they were played years ago at cons), though they're listed on my paizo account. Is there any way to handle this under the rules (like can 1st-level XP apply to 2nd-level advancement if it's in the same subtier), or should I just call it a clusterf*@$ and start over on -2?
Contact your local Venture Officer. They might be able to help you get replacement copies of the chronicles you lost.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Guide 5.0, page 19 wrote:
Im not disagreeing that it doesnt violate the Dont be a Jerk rule, but that isnt what was being discussed. :P
He gets smacked for breaking whatever penalty he gets for breaking his oath.
Oaths Paladins choose and the Code they take upon taking a level in class do not have a 'But only until the situation is inconvenient, then forget about it' clause. He breaks it knowingly, he gets smacked.
In the situation that you put forward, hopefully:
2. The Wizard (or the party in general) are willing to pitch in a bit of gold to help the Paladin get his Oath fixed.
Also, just for clarification, the Gude specifically uses the word 'kill' in regards to what counts as PVP, and it means for another character, not their summons.
I understand what you mean, but your problem with the restriction is how the class is written in the regular Pathfinder rules, not PFS. Mike and John try to make as few changes as possible between PFRPG and PFS, so I doubt this would ever be considered for a change.
If you really want to pursue this, I suggest taking it up elsewhere on the boards to have it changed in PFRPG in general.
I may or may not agree with you here. I dont know to what extent you are talking about, but most GMs I know (myself included) are likely lax enough for you, assuming you arent intentionally going out of your way to break the vows.
For example, Im sure there are GMs who would see a Paladin who knows the truth to be breaking his truth vow if he allows another party member to lie to an NPC, but most (if not all) people I know dont see if that way.
Personally, I see it as more of a challenge to the player, though it is far from something that cant be overcome. If you want that powerful class, find some way to contribute without breaking your vows. :)
For one thing, the only thing the Paladin really loses out on against non-evil enemies is Smite. It still progressively gets to be immune to more and more things as it gains levels. It still gets to swift-action heal itself in combat. It still gets some spells. And a horse. And full BAB. And good armor profs. And give off auras to their allies. And big bonuses to their saves.
Im not saying they are the bet class in the game, but they do get considerably more bonuses than other characters of the same types.
Their restrictions are put into place becauseotherwise there would no reason NOT to play a Paladin if you wanted to go melee.
What you are asking for is that Mike and/or John overwrite a fundamental element of the class specifically for the campaign. That is bigger than changing a regular rule of PFRPG (such as banning crafting), and they really try not to do things like that if at all possible, as it makes the entry to PFS even more difficult, as there are then even more specific rules that separate PFRPG and PFS specifically.
Secondly, Im not talking about barring anyone who is being reasonable. If the Oathbound Paladin and the Demon-Summoner can come up with some kind of arrangement to allow the summoning to happen, and the Paladin to keep his Oath (short of 'I'll just ignore it, but I dont want you to penalize me for it'), then Im likely to be fine with it. If they, the players and/or characters, cannot come up with some agreement, then obviously there is an issue. At least one person is being unwilling to compromise and help the table out. That, to me, counts as them being a jerk. From there, I ask them (could be one, could be both) to work it out, and if they cant, then both need to pick new characters that arent going to provideparty conflict if they wish to play at the table.
Lastly, PFS is not picking on the Paladin. The Paladin chose to join a group that may or may not align directly with their deity's ideals and commandments. The player needs to deal with that fact, since they created the character.
David Bowles wrote:
Maybe PFS needs to write into the core assumption that paladins get some kind of indulgence or seal of approval ahead of time from their chruch when they sign up for Pathfinder Society.
No, no they dont.
Paladin is a very strong class which is supposed to be kept in line by having a strict code of conduct. You break that code, BAM, no benefits for you.
There is no reason that Paladins who choose to become Pathfinders should get special benefits beyond those of non-PFS Paladins (Im talking about in game) just so its convenient to the player (out of game).
Play it by the rules, live with the consequences of breaking them, or dont play it at all.
That said, Im not above granting the Oathbound guy a tiny bit of leeway if he and the demon-summoning character can find some way in-charcter or out, of working out their differences. If they cant, though, both of them should pick something else to play.
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Is the answer 'All the nights'? ;)
The problem with this idea is that it would be very hard to do it in a spoiler-free way. If the NPC showing up is a surprise, then including that scenario on their list will give away that they are involved somehow.
If you dont include stuff like that, then the list is incomplete for those who really want a complete list. :/
There is no good place to store your stuff out of slot times...
+1 to this. The best you can hope for is that you have a friend or someone you at least moderately trust not to steal your stuff) who is still playing 'watch' it by setting it near their table while you run off to do whatever.
Alternatively, you could just leave it unattended at a table. I, and several other people, did this last year for lack of somewhere to put everything. It worked out well enough in that none of our stuff got stolen, though I dont suggest actually doing this. All of your stuff going missing it going to make your day suck pretty quickly.
N N 959 wrote:
How does that go over when you let one person reroll their save vs suck but not the next guy?
1. You are likely giving the reroll to someone who doesnt already have something granting the reroll.
2. You are likely saving it not for a save vs suck but for something that will change the result of a save vs death.
3. Its your reroll. Use it how you see fit.
Every Diviner should get Sandals of Quick Reaction. 4000gp to let you take both a Standard and a Move action in the Surprise round, which you should be getting to act in every time. If you already get both Standard and Move in the surprise round, you get +10ft movement during the surprise round instead.
Clerics: Pyxes of Redirected Focus: 1000gp. Swap a prepped Domain spell for the other Domain spell you get at that spell level.
Maestro of the Society is a Social trait. 'Fashionable' I cannot find. If you mean 'Extremely Fashionable', its out of the Adventurer's Armory and is an Equipment trait. If that is the case, no, they arent the same type, and yes, you can have both of them.
If 'Fashionable' does turn out to be a Society trait that I just couldnt find, then talk to your local Venture Officer. They'll probably just have you change it to something you could actually use.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Fixed that for you.
Stealth check to hide from Thea: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (9) + 2 = 11
One to get the character you played through Eyes of the Ten (and is at 13.2) to 14, and the other to get the character you gave the GM credits for Eyes of the Ten (and is 13.2) to 14?
Thursday, August 14
Friday, August 15
Saturday, August 16
Sunday, August 17
So far as I know, there is no official way to handle this. I think I would probably be to ask the coordinator of the game day to switch the reported number of the character you played from the level 12 to some other, yet unplayed, character, and treat the situation as if you had played a pregen in that scenario. Get the chronicle, apply to the other character, and go from there.
Edit: No, its not the best way to handle it, but its far less work than reworking every scenario youve played since then.
Either that or ask your local VO what they think you should do.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I completely agree. Andrew's enthusiasm for the game is contagious and he is a blast to play with!
Animal Companion / Familar / Mount at the same time and Targeting (Area Effects or otherwise) in Combat
Du Nord wrote:
'Cause for suspision' =/= 'kill on sight'
If that kind of thing is a regular occurrence, I think that group is going to suffer some problems later on in the Pathfinding careers. This likely wont be the last time they need to not outright kill the (probably) evil thing as soon as they see it. :P
1. I never said I would smack anyone with an alignment infraction for doing it. Im not sayin I wont, but I didnt say I would.
2. The players can believe whatever they want. Ive never even hinted at the players that they might be witches, that just tends to be the assumption most people take. It is not my responsibility to make sure they understand exactly who the ladies are.
Also, Im of the opinion that the creatures alignment has little to do with if you are going to need an atonement or not. If a goblin was sitting on a beach, looking out at the water, minding its own business and a Paladin walked up and ran it through, I think that deserves a penalty. Maybe not enough for an atonement to be necessary, but at the very least for it to be noted on the sheet that he killed a creature in cold blood.