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

kinevon's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 4,390 posts (5,556 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 36 Pathfinder Society characters.

1 to 50 of 361 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

You are missing the point. You dont resolve asshattery by being an asshat. You just turn it into a devolving war of lesser returns: an escalation of asshat kinghood.

Teach the player what you know. Explain the why's and wherefores. Explain the campaign tenants, primarily cooperate. Explain that healers should be allowed to buy other gear. Otherwise by higher levels, they will be significantly behind the WBL curve which then means they will be a less effective healer. Finally, that in organized play, there may not be a healer. A ranger or bard or rogue with UMD might be all you have, and if you can't provide for your own healing, why should other martial characters do so?

If this intelligent and logical discourse doesn't change their mind, then your options are to do the bare minimum to succeed at the mission and cooperate, or not play with them.

The bare minimum might be that heal check, or a single charge of your wand, or applying the potion of cure moderate you found in the last encounter.

Eventually, if you and everyone else acts like mature and calm adults, and they continue an attitude of asshattery, the coordinator and/or VO will likely disinvite them from the game.

But returning immature passive aggressiveness just makes the situation worse. And if that's how you choose to comport yourself, then it may be you that gets disinvited.

I think, Andrew, that you have missed the point, actually.

How many times do you have to explain it to Joe Generic? How much of your resources are you requiring the nominal healer to expend, without even a thank you?

When would you, as coordinator or VL, uninvite the guy who, no matter how many times it has been maturely explained to him, continues to act as an asshat?

Also, as mentioned, what if you have a small venue, so you only have 3 or 4 active players, including "I no provide any healing." guy, so what do you do in that case?

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

It doesn't really matter what the word "sacrifice" means, because one of the three tenets of the Pathfinder Society is cooperate. Even if the other player was irking you, allowing him to die is not cooperating, regardless of your preferences. This goes back to one of the OP's core assumptions of PFS; you're assumed to want to cooperate with your fellows.

When someone annoys me in PFS, I try to proactively correct the PLAYER, not passively correct the player by harming his CHARACTER.

So, if I understand you, Chris, and RK correctly, I have to expend my resources, constantly, for this PC who has been warned, multiple times, that I only have a limited amount of resources and patience, and he needs to provide some of his own?

Where does his cooperation start, then? If he isn't cooperating with me, where do I have to let him become a resource drain on my PC, potentially ruining my fun and gaming experience because he is unwilling to cooperate?

Seriously, COOPERATE needs to be a TWO-WAY street. I can only cooperate with you, if you cooperate with me.

On the "trivial" comment, when does constantly spending your 15 gp on someone else stop being trivial?
1 charge is 15 gp
Fine, use it, warn him.
2 charges is 30 gp, not much, except at low levels
Second warning
3 charges adds up to 45 gp, and that would start to cover some fairly nice mundane items.
Third warning, when he has already ignored two?

And, note, these will usually be multiple charges per scenario, not just a single charge, but more.

If my PC winds up blowing an entire wand of CLW on someone who hasn't bought one, is that still cooperation? His PC has now burned up 750 gp, or 2 PP, from my PC.

On Stabilize: There are very few character classes that actually have that as an orison. And, for them, that is still a spell slot that might have been useful for something else. For others, who have access to it, but it would take a 1st level slot, like the Hunter, that is no longer trivial or minor.

On Heal: Standard action to use, no guarantee of success. DC 15. Whatcha gonna do if this is your Wisdom dump PC, who doesn't have it trained? d20-2, potentially? 20% chance of success. In combat, you are probably better going after the enemy, no? And don't forget that trying this also provokes an AoO...

If you check the healing in combat threads, and there are lots of them, it is often considered a waste of time and PC actions to heal anyone in combat, unless it is the only way to save their life.

That, and if you yo-yo someone in combat, there is a good chance that that would be one of the things that makes a CdG into a reasonable tactic for an intelligent baddie to take.

Would deliberately healing someone to provoke the BBEG to CdG them be considered an evil act? "All I did was heal him to consciousness!"

Also in many of those threads that go into combat healing, point out that, frequently, healing is not what the aware PC is designed for. Someone pointed out, up-thread, that someone has a PC whose channel does 1d3, with 3 of them total. That almost certainly also means that they don't have Selective Channel, so that healing will affect anything living in the AoE. Is that a "good" or "effective" use of that PC's actions in combat?

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

So someone, somewhere, at sometime will be running some con online.....

Thats a different issue to deal with.

What I have never had a remotely satisfactory answer to is why Dming three games at a con, even an online one, reaps greater rewards or is somehow better at building the community than dming 3, 6, or even 50 game days.

Yep, and they usually even announce it on the Online Play part of the PFS boards here.

APCon Online

June 26-28, 2015
Open call for GMs & players.

Check the post linked above for full information.

Edit: And it looks, given the ID of the event I just submitted, that they have plenty of slots available for GMs to volunteer to help with.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
trollbill wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
Andrew Roberts wrote:
I want more short races! There are already so few of them that it would be nice to have more. :)

So you're saying that they're in short supply?

*dodges tomatoes*

Don't be so small minded.
I have little patience for all these puns.

All these people are so short tempered. Makes me mad, sad, and vertically challenged.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
What Kinevon is proposing is a different issue entirely, and is not legal under any rule set.

Could you explain what I am proposing, other than building my GM credit blob at the appropriate level, possibly with no time to spend working it up level-by level at the table, and what is illegal?

And there are two threads going, and the answers in each of them seem to be contradictory:

[When is a GM credited character considered "newly created"?

Magabeus wrote:
Guide to PFSoP page 38, Game Master Rewards on applying credit wrote:
A GM may apply credit for running a scenario, module, or Adventure Path in any of the same ways a player can, and must follow the same rules as a player when applying credit to a character. When you choose to take a Chronicle sheet for GM credit, you must decide which of your characters receives the Chronicle sheet when you fill out the tracking sheet for that table. You must apply Chronicle sheets in the order they are received. The only exception is when you hold a highertier Chronicle for a lower-tier character. In either case, you do not need to build the character until you actually play it.
To me this implies that you are able to apply the racial boon to any character with only GM credit, since the character gets build just before actually being played, which seems to fit the "newly-created" requirement

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:

He means the PFS crafting exemption.

I believe it is in either the FAQ or the additional resources

Looked more like asking for the proof on the Throw Anything class ability, but the crafting is in the PFS FAQ at How can alchemists craft in Pathfinder Society Organized Play?

Alchemists can use the Craft (alchemy) skill to produce items with their Alchemy ability. Follow the Craft rules on pages 91–93 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook as well as in the alchemist’s Alchemy ability description. Any item created must be properly noted on that scenario’s Chronicle sheet. Under "Items Bought", note the amount of gold spent and the item created. Alchemists are assumed, for Pathfinder Society Organized Play, to carry the necessary items and tools with them to use available resources to create alchemical items. If they have a base of operations from which to do so, they may use an alchemy lab to gain the +2 bonus on their Craft (alchemy) check. Alchemists may never sell any of their created items nor may they trade them to another PC. However, they may allow other PCs to borrow or use items they’ve created (so long as the alchemist class ability being used allows them to do so).

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quadstriker wrote:
I'm planning on going with the Pig's Paunch ownership decided to change the name back to The Wounded Wisp to appeal to nostalgia until we hear otherwise (and I'm not holding my breath).

Actually, no one in the Pathfinder Society, besides Kreighton Shane, who navigates with his eyes closed, anyhow, could find the place under the new name. The owners had to rename it to bring back all the business they lost....

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rerednaw wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

Ok, so in your case Core=CRB+APG+other main books(since archetypes are not CRB you can't be doing just that).

I am confused though. Most of the tools to make a good blaster are in CRB(fireball and ancillary caster feats)+APG(Dazing spell,human FCB)+UC(magical lineage)+ARG(Paragon surge, if you feel like embracing the cheese). You might be able to push it a bit further with a big pile of splats, but the above is sufficient to make a pretty decent blaster.

Seeker sorcerer is out unless you can persuade your GM to allow PFS stuff.

I think you misunderstand. The other players got to use non-Core. I do not...the Core ruling came down after the original players. The GM going forward will allow very limited non-Core stuff, but my take is he wants flavor, not optimization.

Course if the party runs into Slumber witches I'm going to pout. :)

GM, here, and there seems to be a few confusions and misconceptions in here. ;)

Actually, anything that is not from the CRB, the Web Traits document, or the RotRL AE Player's Guide traits, requires GM approval. This was true, or supposed to be true, for all the PCs in the game. The reason the other player who was going to play a rogue as his replacement PC, is that he had misunderstood or missed my email with the above limitation. He didn't want to play in such a limited-source campaign, wanting an "All Paizo is legal, third party stuff on approval" game instead.

I also requested a PC-only game, no cohorts, animal companions, familiars, etc. RotRL is built for 4 15 point PCs, and maybe an AC or familiar. With 5 20 point PCs, you are already ahead of the game. The Core requirement is also based on the AP being originally written with only Core available.

Unchained Rogue is approved because I am working on my PFS Rogue, and seeing if Unchained works for him, so I have already looked it over. The other Unchained classes are on my reading list, just not sure when I will get the time. I probably need to update my 3rd level PFS Summoner to Unchained, just to make sure that the Eidolon is built legally. I have already screwed that one up as APG at least once already.

The group made a decision to try and power through all of Thistletop without rest. They managed the top level, then headed down. Unfortunately, they were low on consumable resources, managed to miss their AoOs on an enemy whose tactics said to run away at a certain point, and the path he was forced to take, due to PC placement, caused another encounter, one of the harder ones, to activate. That encounter, despite all the players could do, beat them up pretty badly. Didn't help that bad dice rolls caused things like the Wizard failing a Will save and running away in fear, and bad attack and/or damage rolls against an enemy with some DR.

So, currently, the Wizard from the original party is dead, the Urban Ranger, the Paladin and the Druid are imprisoned without any resources. Heck, until the Cleric channeled, most of them were unconscious. So, at present, and this is what brought on my comment on the Rogue, was that they had no way to get the first party free. I thought it was amusing, but that is probably just me.

So, at present, the active party is the original cleric, a fighter, a ranger, and a wizard. In my experience with these players, other than young M being a bit... bossy, they work fairly well together, it just doesn't help when their dice go cold, and mine get hot.

There is a non-Core request thread on our Roll20 site, which I look at and try to answer. Sometimes, it takes me a while. Sometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no. I need to go through, and tabulate all the answers into the first post in that thread, just for ease of lookup. I use the thread, so I don't forget what I have approved, later.

So, play what you want. I am sure things will work out. It won't be long before death becomes just a bump in the road, unless you want to try a different PC.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't open:
2-21 The Dalsine Affair.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Deacon The Diplomat wrote:
I accidentally started calling my PC Commander instead of title Captain from Andoran. Sounds cooler so I just stuck with it. You can call your pc literally whatever you want so long as it doesn't affect things mechanically or its offensive to others.

Heh. I have one PC who has the title Captain multiple ways.

Ship captain, has the ship vanity
Venture captain, played through Eyes of the Ten
Eagle Knight Captain, from the Andoran vanities

Captain (cubed?) Kinevon, 15th level (right this moment) Fighter (Polearm Master)

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@UndeadMitch: I have played MtG regularly, in the past. Dropped it, when money became an issue, then started back up for a short while when my roommate expressed an interest.

The odds of your holo/rare cards actually having value, in my past experience, is fairly low. The odds of you wanting to sell them, as mentioned by another poster, is even lower if you actively play.

My comparison seems to have not been clear enough.

I was comparing the cost of individual packs to individual books, and pointing out that buying a $4 pack is a lot less intimidating then buying a $50 book.

Now, I didn't feel I needed to point out that the dedicated Magic player is likely buying a case, rather than a single pack, at $90 or more a pop, but that the mental image behind it is still the $4 (or less with bulk "savings") per pack.

Buying single cards moves into an even different area, which lowers, other than those rare & expensive cards, the entry cost for MtG, whereas the entry fee, in people's eyes, for Pathfinder is the $50 Core Rulebook.

And then you get the issue of the apparent cost of "add-ons" like Hero Lab, which is $20 for a 2-license basic copy, but ramps up as you add access to the various additional Pathfinder books.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Arcwin wrote:

I've read in the Guide to Organized Play about how to handle potential 7-player table situations or 3-player tables, but I've also seen something else a few times and wondered about it.

What I've seen is GMs who say "I won't run a 6 player table" or "I won't run for more than 4 people" etc. For one's own home game or whatever naturally its fine, but I was wondering if this is allowed for a PFS game?

If you want to be known as a Diva, or various other uncomplimentary names, and you're sponsoring the event yourself, providing the space, etc., sure.

The folks who are sponsoring your table and providing the space, however may have something to say on this. A Judge who pulls this at a Game Store's game day isn't doing the hosting store any favors and may well cause them to lose a customer.

If I'm recruiting Judges for a convention though, Judges with that kind of attitude, are ones I recruit only as a last resort. And quite frankly If I'm marshalling, I will tell them straight out, that I won't turn away players to accommodate a Diva attitude.

You are entitled to your opinion, however uninformed it may be.

However, as a favor to the rest of the world, I would request that you take a 10 count, and think about what you are saying, and how you are saying it, before you post.

If you are unwilling to accommodate your GMs' legitimate requests, or try to work with them on them, you won't have GMs. If you insist on insulting anyone who has a different opinion on how to provide a good game, you will find that you are stuck on your own, trying to GM multiple tables, because your attitude drives your potential GMs away.

For me, I try not to run 7 player tables, because they often lead to non-fun situations. Either someone doesn't get much face time, or some of the people get bored and stop paying attention, or, and it has happened in my experience, no one is helping out the new guy. The GM because they are busy trying to keep track of 7 PCs, who knows how many familiars, ACs, mounts, etc. And, of course, their own NPCs, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Last time I ran a 7 player table, one of the PCs got killed during an encounter, partly because no one was able to do more than tell him that casting Sleep was a less than optimal idea, especially not where he had positioned himself, and then his unconscious body got into an AoE that I could not figure out a way to get him out of.

Wizard moved into the baddies' room, started casting Sleep. One of the bad guys made his Spellcraft check, directed the melee minion to go after the Wizard. Wizard hit, knocked unconscious. Minion suffered enough damage to incapacitate him, which also caused said minion to explode. No way to get the minion far enough away form the downed Wizard to get him out of the explosion radius. High damage roll, failed Reflex save, damage went beyond negative Con. Low level, so no access to Breath of Life. Low level so insufficient PP to get a Raise Dead.

I had tried to warn him about the downsides to his attempt to cast Sleep, but had to continue running the game.

Result: Dead wizard, time for a new PC. Someday. Newish player (PC had 2 XP), have only seen him in passing playing board games, since.

So, I am allergic to running 7 player tables, because, overall, I am not going ot do as good a job of it, leading to a less enjoyable experience for both the players and the GM. What I call a lose-lose situation.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avatar-1 wrote:

Back in the day there was a section in the PFS guide called "Play play play" which was basically saying do anything you can to get a table running, but it was always a bit fuzzier on just far how you could go to do that.

The current version of the guide just says minimum 3 players with 1 pregen, so I don't think that still applies.

Does that phrase still do a Summon Dragnmoon?

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelly Youngblood wrote:

Give your character a personality, preferably one that is not a stereotype of your race and class. That said, don't overdo it and hog the spotlight or draw out the game.

And yes, please pay attention during the mission briefing. Ask questions even if it seems clear. Take notes!


Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Baker wrote:
I agree with Eric on this one. There was no error made. Regardless of the social aspect, where would you draw the line? The Bard with the cure light potions as mentioned above? Perhaps the barbarian example provided, if he had already played a game?

I disagree, but I think it is unfair to penalize someone because someone gave them bad advice.

On the computer thing, it is a totally different paradigm. Now, if you are a computer technician, and bought the PC when you were perfectly capable of putting the parts together, and knew it, that is your own lookout. But if you weren't, it is a totally different thing.

He didn't have the option offered to him. He was never properly informed of his options to begin with. How is penalizing him for someone else's misinformation fair?

"Hi! You paid X amount for this item,. but the person selling it to you, despite presenting you with what appeared to be legal papers, stole it. I am going to arrest you now for possession of stolen goods."

Remember to temper justice with mercy and compassion.

Grand Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Arcwin: The rule, as cited in a similar thread a while back, was that, if the GM or Organizer announces a game for X number of people, whether that is 4, 5, 6 or 7, they have the right to only seat X number of people at their table.

So, what I have seen, frequently, is that some GMs will, for Season 0-3 and modules and AP segments, post a hard limit of either 4 or 5 players. Mainly because these games are designed to handle 4 PCs, not 6.

The same GMs will, frequently, bump the limit up to 6 for Season 4 and later scenarios, but that is because those games are designed to handle 6 PCs.

Oftentimes, in my experience, too many players at a table can cause unintentional issues, whether it is someone never getting to act in any combat, or someone not getting heard over the general noise level. And those can affect even online or home games, where the GM and players are the general noise level.

As a GM, I prefer not to GM 7 player tables, it tends to do bad things to everyone's' fun, including mine. As a player, I have been known to give up my seat if we wind up with a 7 player table.

BTW, to the VOs: I GM PFS, not as a representative of Paizo, but because the PFS scenarios are usually short, quick, inexpensive, and cover the problems I have with world-building; amd, also, because there was, when I started doing it, very little other PFS available, other than the now-moribund monthly Game Days and defunct annual gaming convention.

In other words, if I didn't do it, no one was. Our original VC jumped on the site and day I was doing, and helped pump up attendance, and find some alternate GMs. When he stopped being VC, things slowed down for my game day at the FLGS again.

New VC, I think he bit off more than he could chew. Assigned multiple VLs, not sure if any of them were supposed to coordinate with the shop I GM at. Nothing very visible from him.

Third VC, he did more, while he could. Tried to get PFS going at some of the other local conventions, not much local response. Life came up and bit him.

Our current VC, our fourth, is seeing if running PFS online is the solution to get PFS going locally. That is fairly recent, not sure how it is working out. At the first game, one of the other players brought in a friend from another location to make it a 4 player table...

So, Saturdays is, usually, me as GM, although I have been tryign to get others to run, as well. Only one taker, so far. Sundays is a different organizer/primary GM, but his job doesn't leave him able to always run on Sundays. My job moved me away from being able to show up for his games, since I have to be at work before his game session ends, usually.

I am going to be trying to run Bonekeep 1 on the 2nd of May, locally, no idea how well that is going to go oevr. Not even sure how many people have PCs in the correct level range, as the turnover sometimes seems to leave us in perpetual Confirmation/Wounded Wisp mode.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Professor Herp wrote:
People can have high initiatives and use that advantage responsibly.
With great initiative comes great responsibility.

When the arcane caster announces "Hey guys, do you mind holding off long enough for me to get an AOE on the bad guys?" and then the initiative monkey rushes into combat it's a violation of the "Don't Be a Jerk" rule to invoke the "No PvP" rule.

As a GM, in situations like that I'm fine with telling the caster's player the initiative monkey's player has just given tacit approval to be within said AoE by moving right into the area.

Is that "high initiative" player still being a jerk if his init was a 7, the enemies go on 5, and the caster's initiative was a 2?

Meh. This whole conversation, in many ways, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I spent years in a gaming group that was always trying to "improve" my RP skills, or get me to RP more.

Where is "enough"? It is going to be a different amount for different people, and, honestly, trying to force too much RP on someone is also a jerk move.

To be honest, one of the problems my area has is that we don't have enough active GMs, so we wind up with a GM who is not a high-end, or even a medium range, RPer as one of the main GMs. That's me, by the way. I am not very much into RP. The RP I did the other day for my Core halfling Rogue was farther than I normally go with my RP. ::shrug:: YMMV.

I do what I can, but I am much more Brian than Sara....

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Four Dollar Dungeons wrote:
Four Dollar Dungeons wrote:

If you want to wait about 4 months for the next adventure I'm writing, currently called Isle of Gods, this is set on an island that looks very much like Lindisfarne (which is not far from where I live, funnily enough) ...


And here it is:

Holy Island



Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Acedio wrote:

You know, I don't think anybody's going to demonize you for not liking people having tons of rerolls. I sympathize; it is kind of a bummer because they make it that much more difficult to create suspenseful situations.

But the real problem is when you try to twist rules to legitimize your dislike and enforce it.

You may not realize it, but the person at the end of the table who has invested (financially or otherwise) in collecting various means of rerolling out of a bad situation now has to be told that they can't do that because you happen to not like it.

Sounds great for a homebrew where you can very easily establish these constraints and work with your players. In PFS it just creates unnecessary potential for sour situations. Particularly at conventions where you don't know many of the people.

I'm trying not to be sour about this myself, but I'm finding it difficult to not be, because it seems like a trend with many people on the forums. I've said it before: it is fine (and inevitable) to have table variation because of legitimate rules interpretations. It is not ok to introduce table variation by twisting the rules to your whims.

EDIT: Changed wording, the previous phrasing sounded waaaay too personal. Sorry.

How is interpreting the word "must" as must, twisting things?

Because you are taking it out of context. The context is that you must take the reroll instead of the original roll, not that you must not use another way to take a reroll.

Your conclusion also fails if you use a reroll ability on something that you have to roll multiple dice on to begin with, since you would reroll all those dice, and take the one of the rerolled dice that matches the limitation of the original roll multiple dice ability.

Or are we going to go back to whether a True Strike spell active on your original attack, which was a crit threat, would also apply to the critical confirmation roll?

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Soluzar wrote:

Apparently everyone responding doesn't seem to get the idea. There are no limitations listed. It says "any number of spells." But everyone here wants to interpret it in the most punitive way possible. This boon was written long before Core was considered. To me it seems like people wanting to keep any and every non-Core option out of the game no matter what (just look at Kevin Willis' post). The idea behind Core is earned access, people seem to be forgetting that.

I just asked the question to test the feasibility but I guess it doesn't matter. I already scribed the spells anyway (all three of game breaking). I will hold to that definition until someone higher up says otherwise.

So, tell me, would you also rule that this boon gives you the right to scribe blood transcription in Standard PFS?

So, for the boon, since it does not list any specific resources, or specific spells, it only, only gives access to the spell sources, and spells, that are legal for the OP campaign it is used in.

For Core, that gives access to spells, other than spells listed as not available, from the Core Rulebook, the Web Traits Enhancement, the language blog post, and the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. And, since of those books, only the CRB has spells in it, it only gives access to scribe spells from the Core Rulebook.

Note that the boon only gives free access to spells you can scribe, it does not open access to any spells you could not otherwise scribe. The boon only waives the access cost to the spell, not whether the spell is normally legal or not.

So, if your PC has used this boon to scribed, say, Snowball, Create Pit and some other spell from outside Core, with only this boon as a source, that PC has removed itself from the Core Campaign.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Paz wrote:
The Accursed Halls, the first level of Thornkeep, is also tier 1-2 and gives 3 XP & 4 Prestige.
And it takes less time, since it is a TPK unless the GM rolls poorly.

Seriously? I don't know about you, but I don't softball it, have run it multiple times, and only had a TPK once, against the freaking vegetables. And I may have been running them wrong, how they work has been debated in the Rules forum.

The <redacted> can be a pain, but most parties, even Core, will have some stuff that will work against it.

The other <redacted> doesn't hit very well. In 6+ runs, I have only seen it hit once, and that was against a 2nd level PC, so ugly but not instantly fatal. Really, it hits less than half the time against an AC of 15 or higher. And most front liners are going to have higher ACs than that.

Ledford is deadlier.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Modules & AP segments that give 3 XP for tier 1-2 or 1-3:

1-2 Crypt of the Everflame
1-2 Murder's Mark
1-2 The Godsmouth Heresy
1-3 Dragon's Demand, Part 1
1-2 Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls
1-2 Emerald Spire: The Tower Ruins
1-3 Emerald Spire: The Cellars
1-2 Reign of Winter: The Snows of Summer
1-2 The Mummy's Mask: The Half-Dead City

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Because it's substantially different enough that it's not better for everyone who built for it?

Yes, the ability is different than before. That's obvious.

But the "build" for it, is the same.

Before, it required a ranged attack roll(s).

It still does, now.

So, if you took feats and abilities to augment your ranged attacks, like Precise Shot, those are still equally of use.

If you didn't, then you're also in the same boat.

I fail to see how people can ask for a rebuild. Especially when what they got, is better.

Well, let's see:

6th level.
Before: 6 shots at 1d8+Cha Mod, going against DR, Fort save for half on each shot
Now: Single shot, 4d6+Cha Mod, going against ER, no save.

All sorts of differences, right there. Any feats or other build points used to improve the DC of the Fort save, or to overcome or bypass the DR? No longer apply.
Anything that might help the sonic part overcome ER? Not there, yet.

Sorry, plenty of differences, not all of them make it better. May not make it worse, but definitely makes it different.

Sure, some of the things that can work with one version will work with the other, but not everything, by far.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, they finally came through with the Sound Striker FAQ on how the Weird Words ability works, and it is more of an errata than an FAQ.

Bard: The sound striker’s weird words ability is confusing. Does it work more than once on the same target? And does it require 30 rolls to adjudicate?
Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.

posted Fri, Mar 13, 2015

So, is this worth any sort of PC rebuild for free option? It doesn't change a feat, class-dependent stat, or weapon proficiency, but it does have a major change on how one of the archetype-defining features works.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TetsujinOni wrote:
kinevon wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The Fox wrote:

1. Yes, that is fine.

2. This is also fine.

You may want to print out the temporary cards that are available on your event organizer page when you set up the event. You can give these out to all of your players along with chronicle sheets, and log the event with all of those temporary ID numbers. That way, if the uninterested players later change their minds, there is nothing more you need to do.

3. The -# will be the character number they are applying the credit toward. If they are new, then this will be -1. If they are not new, they have the opportunity to apply the credit to whichever character they want.

2 is most certainly NOT Fine because you need a minimum of three registered players to report a table.

The first thing I tell ALL newbies is that their night's homework is to download and READ the Campaign Guide and Additional Resources documents. The bulk of the answers you need are there.

2 is fine, you would need three players to run a PFS table. PFS sanctioned modules or APs in campaign mode do not have any requirements, other than maintenance of the storyline, not even that it be run using the Pathfinder Role-Playing Game rules.

And, just as an FYI, there are several PFS events where a GM alone may be all that is reported:
Overseer GM for any of the multi-table Specials
GMing Silverhex Chronicles
GMing the Beginner Box Bash, IIRC. I think it also covers any of the Beginner Box PFS-sanctioned intro pieces.

Free RPG Day 20111 I ran We Be Goblins.

No player wanted a PFS #. I wanted a chronicle. GM and no players reported. 100% legit.

I have seen the future, and it is We Be Goblins! 20,111? ;)

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FranKc wrote:
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
And once this season, you can change your faction for free.

This only applies to characters who have been played before the start of season six. It's because of the changes in some factions.

And yes, I believe that a paladin in Dark Archives is viable. It is commonly known fact that Zarta Dralneen is evil and thus needs to be kept under keen observation.

I understand that the Calistrians keep her under close observation. Sometimes, you just need some... inspiration. ;)

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

Those remarks were intended to bait, flame, and discredit the target on a personal level. You view them differently, that is your prerogative. I question the integrity of anyone who says dye arrow and Explosive Missile is not an exploit.

One of the lead designers of Pathfinder disagrees that it is clear. Per the PFS guide, I am empowered to adjudicate things that are not clear. You run your table how you see fit.

Mine was not an attack on you, if you so interpreted it, I apologize. My comment, as mentioned, was an attempt to make sure you understand that rules in PFS are run as written, not as the GM prefers. That second is what happens in home games, not PFS games.

As to your comments that it is an exploit, maybe. Would a ranged touch attack that does other kinds of damage, instead of hit point damage, still deliver the EM attack?

Actually, the one you should worry about, and probably needs an answer, is EM with a splintershot arrow. Does the EM affect the area covered by the splinter affect of the arrow, or just the initial target? Note that since the splintershot arrow now has to hit, and does normal damage first, before the area effect is triggered, does the EM "rider" affect the target of the arrow, or tthe area affected by the splinters?

Or is the question more, "Is turning someone blue/yellow/red actually damaging to them?" I know that there are a couple of scenarios where if someone gets affected by a trap, and turned blue, it is noted down by the NPCs...

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is why the question, in part, revolves around whether the armor was just broken, or actually destryoed.

Broken is just hit point damage, and, while a full suit of plate armor, for example, might need a 50th level caster to repair as a unit. It isn't a unit, it is made of multiple pieces of armor that can be dealt with separately. Believe me, if it were a single piece, it would be more of a tank than something anyone could actually be mobile in. Then again, it would be a lot faster to don, too.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ARGH! wrote:
As a short term solution, go to your VO and ask.

VOs, unfortunately, are not rules sources. Some of them have pretty bad rules understandings. I think there are a couple of threads on these boards about some pretty bad rules interpretations provided by some VOs.

Overall, unfortunately, as written, Potion Glutton should let an Alchemist create and drink an extract as a swift action, since the FAQ on extracts says that mixing and drinking are all part of the same action.

Do expect our old friend, Table Variation, to come visit. At least until our older friend, Rules Clarifications, comes to call, and (possibly) rules that extracts are not affected by Potion Glutton.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
I think John Compton speculated that they were doing a pub crawl when they founded the society...but yeah, Kreighton Shane has access to some high quality, black market alchemical concoctions.

No, it wasn't John, it was me that mentioned the pub crawl idea.

Then again, I think the primary deity of the Pathfinder Society is either Desna or Caydean Caillean. Or maybe we're all just drunk butterflies....

And, yes, wasn't Kreighton the fellow who researched Enhance Water?

Grand Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

At present, First Steps is the only scenario or module in the evergreen list that cannot be played at all with a 2nd level PC. Although Silverhex can only ever be played for credit with the 1st level pregens.

The Silverhex Chronicles (1st level pregens only)

03-I1: First Steps, Part 1: In Service to Lore (First level only)
05-08: The Confirmation
06-10: The Wounded Wisp

Crypt of the Everflame
Emerald Spire, Part 1: The Tower Ruins
Master of the Fallen Fortress (1 XP, 1 PP)
Murder's Mark
The Godsmouth Heresy
Thornkeep, Part 1: The Accursed Halls
We Be Goblins! (1 XP, 1 PP)

Adventure Paths:
Mummy's Mask: The Half-Dead City
Reign of Winter: The Snows of Summer

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just an FYI:
Handle Animal is for animals, no matter how intelligent the animal is.

Horse: N Large animal
Griffon: N Large magical beast
Worg: NE Medium magical beast

Animal wrote:

An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Animals usually have additional information on how they can serve as companions. An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted).

d8 Hit Die.
Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for animals: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim.
Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
Low-light vision.
Alignment: Always neutral.
Treasure: None.
Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore treats its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature's attack rolls, and the animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.
Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.
Animals breathe, eat, and sleep.

Magical Beast wrote:

Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2 (in which case the magical beast knows at least one language, but can't necessarily speak). Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but are sometimes merely bizarre in appearance or habits. A magical beast has the following features.

d10 Hit Die.
Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (fast progression).
Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for magical beasts: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, Swim.
Traits: A magical beast possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

Darkvision 60 feet.
Low-light vision.
Proficient with its natural weapons only.
Proficient with no armor.
Magical beasts breathe, eat, and sleep.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Invisbility, sneak attacks, and multiple attacks.

That a 20 on a skill check is not a guaranteed success.

Perception and distance, along with the effects of barriers.

Potions, and the restriction on making potions of spells with a target of "You".

Wands, scrolls and potions vis-a-vis casting time. (Or why a potion of Enlarge Person is one of the best options, especially in Core).

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Rathunde wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Your GM is running the Enigma Vaults...
...and everyone is level 3.

Nope, one level 3 PC, three level 4 pregens, one GMNPC, the other two because the players don't have characters in that range...

Level 3 was an archer (Urban Ranger/wannabe rogue)
Level 4 pregens: Kyra, Crowe, and Sajan...

Cleric, Bloodrager and Monk...

And I kept forgetting the Bloodrager had uncanny dodge, so...

Well, I notified my players, and am waiting to hear back from them on how we want to handle this mess.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spyder, although her status (alive or dead) is sort of... weird.
Torch, multiple castings, please.
Nefti and/or Kafar.
Drandle Dreng
Adril Hestram (again, status as to living/dead may be in question)
Ven Lorovox (I know, but still...)

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
eternallamppost wrote:

The question for whether or not we ban something is not "what is it adding?" The question is "What is it hurting?" and the answer here is not much.

Its a two parter. What does it add to the game VS what does it hurt.

In this case its hurting the low level play in some areas where the trend catches on. As it seems to add nothing to the game even that localized damaged to the game seems to call for a ban.

Is it hurting low level play, so much, in increasing the chances of those first level PCs to survive the weaknesses inherent in first level play?

All it takes to kill a first level PC, likely past negative Con, is a crit, especially if they aren't high-Con Barbarians with Toughness and the Tribal Scars feat.

And, honestly, as the PCs themselves gain survivability, the bought creature loses viability at the same rate.

And there are plenty of PC builds that can do as much or more damage without a purchased animal.

Would it be better or worse to have a couple of people with half-orc PCs, barbarians, with the half-orc feat/trait that gives them a boost to their Rage so they get +8 to Str and Con instead of +4?

How about a perfectly legal table of 7 Druid PCs, all with ACs? This ban request won't affect that group.

And, equally, hitting bought animals with the banhammer would just change the build, so you get either the Rapid Shot burst of arrows, or the Raging Barbarian with the graetsword.

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your GM is running the Enigma Vaults...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pickin_grinnin wrote:
I don't believe that everyone should always have an equal amount of wealth at any time, just as I don't believe that everyone should get a trophy in a competition (like they do in schools today). The first set of players earned the money, the second set didn't. I don't see what the problem is. If I joined a campaign that was already in progress, I would expect to have the same wealth and magic items as people already playing in it.

Did you mean you would NOT expect it, or you would expect it?

On a more serious note, the best option would be to discuss the situation with your players.

Whether that is privately with the existing players first, or with all of the players at once, is up to you.

Explain the situation, and see if you can all come to a satisfactory resolution, whether it is the existing PCs pooling the money and sharing it out, so that even their new allies get a share, or if they want to go with the "You get this as a deed.... to a haunted house/abandoned keep/etc." type thing.

That can lead into a new setup for future adventures.

At third level, giving them a title to, say, Fangwood Keep, but they have to clear it out, might be a good thing on all sides...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of the rules, pulled from the PRD:

Full-Round Action wrote:

A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.

Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.

Restricted Activity wrote:
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).
Start/Complete Full-Round Action wrote:
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, there is an item in existence, in the CRB, that does something similar to what you want, and that is an AMULET OF PROOF AGAINST DETECTION AND LOCATION.

It uses Nondetection instead of Mind Blank, it is always on, and it only costs 35,000 gp, so 17,500 to create. CL 8, uses the neck slot, so trying to scry on you would take a caster level check against a DC of 19.

Nondetection is Sorcerer/Wizard 4, compared to Mind Blank's Sorcerer/Wizard 8.

You can talk with the GM to see if he would allow customization to raise the caster level, and therefore the opposed caster level check, for a higher price.

Edit: Mind blank is too high level for a wand, but scrolls, if you can cast it yourself, would cost: 3,000 gp apiece.

For an item that can cast Mind Blank once per day:
Use-activated or continuous: SL * CL * 2,000 gp, so 8 * 15 * 2,000 = 240,000
Charges per day: 1 divide by (5/1) = 240,000/5 = 48,000 gp
Neck slot = 48,000 gp, 24,000 gp to craft
Unslotted would be 96,000 gp, 48,000 gp to craft.

I would probably increase the cost, since the duration per cast is already 24 hours, so that is not accounted for above.

Grand Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
The cheapest one is a battle trained bison for 50gp. A group of level 1's can simply trample their way to victory with ease.

Keep in mind, characters have to participate in 3 encounters to get XP, and don't get any loot for encounters they miss. Standing back and watching your purchased pets do stuff does not count as "participating" at my table. Of course, I would tell the players that up front, not surprise them with it at the end.

(Sidebar: on the issue of "carnivore feed" - it's simpler to just buy goats, since goats can carry themselves and don't encumber you or your T-Rex...)

So, does "participate" include the Cleric, who rolls low on Initiative, at least relatively, every combat, so he never gets to act because the high Initiative blaster or TH meleer kills everything in one hit? How about if all the Cleric does is activate his wand of Bless, or the Bard does his performance?

If yes, how is it different if the meleer is a class feature (AC) or something someone in the party spent their gold on?

How about the goat/sheep trap finders? You know, where someone in the party buys a herd of sheep, then drives them through the dungeon in front of the party, to set off traps and ambushes.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tchrman35 wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Tsriel wrote:
CireJack wrote:
It is now available.
One option out of 16 chronicle sheets? I wonder how many will come up as "already accredited" once I start plugging in my backlog of accreditation for this thing?
It is a single checkbox in the Edit area, but in the Reporting area it shows all 16 levels as separate options to report.
I'm not seeing that. Hmm. Well, the game's tomorrow. It will either report correctly, or it won't. I'm not going to worry too much about it. But if I'm doing something wrong, I'd love to know!

There are a few threads about it, but the reporting site has been having some ... issues ... since they added the ability to report Core mode games.

They are working on a fix for all the issues, but, once done, it should go back to click on one box to get all 16 levels for Emerald Spire to show as individual options when reporting.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Sammy T wrote:

1) 'Munchkinism' is quite the pejorative term to be throwing around. Let's avoid that, shall we?

It's the same thing whether it's called "System Mastery" or "Munchkin". They mean the same thing, far as I'm concerned the two terms are completely interchangeable and if one is offensive, then so is the other one.

What, what?!

System mastery and munchkinism are barely, and only distantly, related.

Munchkinsim, at its heart, is min-maxing past min-maxing. System mastery is working within the system for the best results for what you want to do.

System mastery would be knowing that your Power Attacking, Vital Striking PC would benefit greatly from Furious Focus.

Munchkinism would not be working on a Vital Strike build to begin with, but working toward a Pounce build instead.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
kinevon wrote:
137ben wrote:

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?

The actual text says
Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

No, Ben, you don't. Really, if you read the item, nowhere does it say you can take a spell that isn't from your own class's spell list.

It says you can add a cantrip or orison, it doesn't say you can add ANY cantrip or orison.

There is a way to get it to work, by the way, but it requires spending a trait as well as buying the item, and there are still cheaper ways to do it.

Does it say I can add an orison? Yes.

Does it say I can add a cantrip? Yes.
Does it say I can only add an orison if I have the orison class feature? No.
Does it say I can only add a cantrip if I have the cantrip class feature? No.

And, if you did that in my games, even before this FAQ, it wouldn't have worked, because it doesn't make any sense.

If it worked in your home games, you can still rule that it works, no matter how nonsensical it seems to other people.

But, RAW, it never said you could cast the spell if it wasn't on your spell list.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a couple of points you may have forgotten:
CL3, so 3d8+3 points of damage, average: 16.5 before the save.
Save DC is 12
Doll is tiny, and this is a Touch spell, so it has to provoke an AoO just to reach the range to try and touch the target, as it has to go into the target's square.
It's touch attack should be only +1 to hit vs Touch AC, too.
As far as I can tell, it has to cast, move, then touch, as it has only a minuscule chance of casting it defensively (DC 21 vs a Concentration of +2)

I know, when I ran it, I was concerned, especially since the target was a first level PC, but I rolled low damage, so he was unconscious, rather than dead.

And there are plenty of other things that can easily kill a first level PC if their luck turns bad, especially if the PC has some less than stellar build choices. I once one-shot a PC because he: Dumped his Con to 8, was playing a Witch, and took his FCB as a skill poitn. Then he moved up to an enemy to cast a CLW to heal an ally that was down by the enemy. AoO was a confirmed crit, since his AC was also low. Damage was 17 points on the crit, PC had 5 hit points, and an 8 Con...

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
DrParty06 wrote:
Furansisuco wrote:

Don't forget, I talk in Pathfinder Society Rules.

i mean, There no are time in the scenario, no can craft weapon or magic items, no writte scrolls, this rules.
You can't write scrolls, but there is downtime between scenarios in which you can access spellbooks to write new spells into your's paying the price listed in the CRB. Doing this is the same as making a purchase of an item, i.e. let your GM know at the end or start of game where you are going to do the writing what spells you will want to add and the cost to do so. They can make a note of it on your chronicle sheet and you will have the spells added to your spellbook.
That's just the price for access. You still have to pay the cost for scribing the spell into your book.

Hmmm. Not quite sure you have that one right.

Scribing spells, other than when modified by a few feats and/or boons, is something you will always have to pay.

Access cost is only when using an NPC as a source, rather than another PC's spellbook/familiar. or a found scroll/spellbook, and that cost is half the scribing cost.

Scribing cost is 10 times the level of the spell (for your class) squared.
Level 1: 10 gp scribing cost, 5 gp access cost, DC 16 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 21 Spellcraft to decipher (not needed if you have Read Magic prepared, or the spellbook owner is available)
Level 2: 40 gp scribing cost, 20 go access cost, DC 17 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 22 Spellcraft to decipher
Level 3: 90 gp scribing cost, 45 gp access cost, DC 18 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 23 Spellcraft to decipher
Level 4: 160 gp scribing cost, 80 gp access cost, DC 19 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 24 Spellcraft to decipher
Level 5: 250 gp scribing cost, 125 gp access cost, DC 20 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 25 Spellcraft to decipher
Level 6: 360 gp scribing cost, 180 gp access cost, DC 21 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 26 Spellcraft to decipher
*Level 7: 490 gp scribing cost, 245 gp access cost, DC 22 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 27 Spellcraft to decipher
*Level 8: 640 gp scribing cost, 320 gp access cost, DC 23 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 28 Spellcraft to decipher
*Level 9: 810 gp scribing cost, 405 gp access cost, DC 24 Spellcraft to scribe, DC 29 Spellcraft to decipher

* Only available for access in PFS if on a chronicle, or the PC is high enough to have spell slots for that level of spell.

The decipher Spellcraft check is easily bypassed, either by having the spellbook owner available, or using a cantrip, Read Magic. And you can get Read Magic, usable once per day for 10 minutes, with a wayfinder and an unflawed dull grey Ioun stone...

Even if you use Fame limits for spell availability (1st level spells always available, Fame 5 unlocks spells up to 6th level if you combine the access & scribing costs), it is going to usually be more about the caster's wealth than anything else that limits his access to scribing spells.

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
qwerty1971 wrote:
are core class archetypes allowed in CORE?

No, unless they get unlocked on a chronicle, as there are no archetypes in any of the Core Mode resources.

@Jiggy: I would assume that you can report a campaign mode AP or multi-chronicle module in either Core tr Standard mode, and the GM and players would get chronicles as appropriate (plain or marked Core).

I actually brought this up last session of my RotRL game, as we haven't reached the first sanctioned section yet, so we still have the option of getting Core or Standard chronicles for the AP. Given where we are, I gave my players time to mull their decision over.

If I understand it correctly, though, it is still going to have to be all Core or all Standard, not a mixed bag. Which is also why I wanted to give my players plenty of time to think it over, rather than going, "Okay, we have completed the first sanctioned section, you all get a PFS chronicle to apply to one of your PFS PCs. Did you want this as Core or Standard mode?" at the end of the sanctioned area....

Grand Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For the most part, the Specials are actually the opener for each storyline, rather than the closer.

Season 0 - None
Season 1 - None
Season 2 - Year of the Shadow Lodge
Season 3 - Blood Under Absolom
Season 4 - Race for the Runecarved Key
Season 5 - Siege of the Diamond City
Season 6 - Legacy of the Stonelords

Some of the essential scenarios, especially for new folk to PFS:
5-08: The Confirmation (1-2)
6-10: The Wounded Wisp (1-2)
3-I1: First Steps, Part 1: In Service to Lore (1)
These three are replayables, and introduce the Society, and some of the society's concepts, and some warnings about things likely to be found along the way.

Season 1:
51: The City of Strangers, Part 1: The Shadow Gambit (1-7)
52: The City of Strangers, Part 2: The Twofold Demise (1-7)
IIRC, these scenarios are the first time the general Society runs across the Shadow Lodge.

0-1: Silent Tide (1-5)
0-14: The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch (1-7)
1-45: Delirium's Tangle (1-5)
These are some of the earlier scenarios that use Grandmaster Torch.

Season 2:
2-23: Shadow's Last Stand, Part 1: At Shadow's Door (1-7)
2-24: Shadow's Last Stand, Part 2: Web of Corruption (1-7)
More-or-less the end of the original Shadow Lodge arc.

2-26: The Mantis's Prey (7-11)
Grandmaster Torch and the Shadow Lodge...

I am sure I am missing stuff, and I am not going into the later arcs, due to memory failure...

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember proving, once, that one of the VCs was a doppleganger.

And another turned out to be a revenant. Or at least a real pain to make sure that he stayed dead...

And one of the faction leaders has been proven to be an illusion...

Grand Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eryx_UK wrote:
That is something that makes me laugh with the PFS options. If it is considered fair in a home brew campaign then it should be fair game in PFS.

That description varies so wildly that it is a null phrase.

I am running a home game of Rise of the Runelords, and my rules are a heck of a lot more limiting then Standard PFS, and barely more freeing than the new Core campaign.

20 point buy
CRB races only
CRB classes only, but no pets, bonded item or domain instead, no animal domain.
5 players
Anything outside of Core is on a case-by-case basis.

So, what I consider fair in my home game is a lot stricter, which is also what many posters have also stated is their experience with their home games, than what is allowed in PFS Standard.

1 to 50 of 361 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.