Baleful polymorph


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Dysfunction wrote:

just to provide clarity and hopefully bring this back to topic, my whole line of questioning was in the direction for familiars.

specifically, having a familiar of one animal type and paying to have said animal BP'd into another animal type

No, it isn't allowed. There is a reason it is call Baleful. It also isn't meant to be a work around to get an AC or familiar that isn't available on the list of whatever class.

1/5

In that case, if it failed its will save it would lose all of its abilities as they are all extraordinary abilities. It wouldn't be very useful to you. I am pretty sure though, that the ruling made for PCs would apply to Animal Companions and familiars as well. So, you would have to clear it at the end.

Edit: Ninja'd

5/5 5/55/55/5

So if a fighter has a point of charisma drain can he just carry it from scenario to scenario?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

BigNorseWolf wrote:
So if a fighter has a point of charisma drain can he just carry it from scenario to scenario?

Can you please advise the scenario where a fighter may have a chance to have charisma drained? It's late and I'm having trouble remembering which scenario this is found in.

1/5

To play devil's advocate for second, I do recall a scenario that has a wight that drains CON. Not CHA, but it is drain nonetheless. I don't want to give any spoilers but I will say that it does appear in the Tier 1-2 version of that scenario. 380 GP is less than the total reward so they would likely be able to clear it at the end though.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Then yes, drain needs to be cleared at the end of the scenario.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Michael Brock wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
So if a fighter has a point of charisma drain can he just carry it from scenario to scenario?
Can you please advise the scenario where a fighter may have a chance to have charisma drained? It's late and I'm having trouble remembering which scenario this is found in.

Spoiler:
The "orderlies" in the cultists kiss are Totenmaskes. which deal charisma drain.

I'm really just asking about the larger issue of having to eliminate every condition vs just having to eliminate a list of ones/ anything that would make you completely incompetent to adventure

1/5

I think I know where this is going, but...

Do you have to dispel negative levels at the end as well? If you can't afford to dispel the negative levels after being raised, are you removed from play (dead)?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Yes you have to dispel negative levels at the end of an adventure.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I'm really just asking about the larger issue of having to eliminate every condition vs just having to eliminate a list of ones/ anything that would make you completely incompetent to adventure

I'm not making a big, long list. The Guide is already long enough as is.. Every condition must be cleared. Since you asked, there you have it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Michael Brock wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I'm really just asking about the larger issue of having to eliminate every condition vs just having to eliminate a list of ones/ anything that would make you completely incompetent to adventure

I'm not making a big, long list. The Guide is already long enough as is.. Every condition must be cleared. Since you asked, there you have it.

Thanks.

Can you take out the paragraphs in the guide talking about carrying conditions over? They're very much at odds with the clear everything intent.

1/5

He did us a solid by making the ruling. I bet it's changed in the updated guide that isn't out yet. No need to push his buttons any more than we already have. ;)

5/5 5/55/55/5

Robert A Matthews wrote:
He did us a solid by making the ruling. I bet it's changed in the updated guide that isn't out yet. No need to push his buttons any more than we already have. ;)

I'm trying not to but I'm working with a charisma penalty here :)

Hmmmm... this considerably raises the amount of gold/pp you need to have in reserve to come back from the dead for the level 5-6 crowd.

A low level character could easily go broke from using a failed remove disease or two.

Even a second level character getting hit with an energy drain could be dead unless the party chips in for him.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 *

Indeed Norse. Coming back from the dead is not a cheap thing, nor should it be.

Silver Crusade

It's worth noting that he specifically disallowed squirrels as Pathfinders. He said nothing whatsoever about banning Secret Squirrel as a Pathfinder. So Polymorph might not be the way to go... perhaps some sort of really weird Druid/Rogue multi-class that uses Wild Shape to take the desired form?

...Ow! I kid, I kid, stop throwing rocks at me!

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
Indeed Norse. Coming back from the dead is not a cheap thing, nor should it be.

Matthew, I think BNW is saying that it's not 'death' that makes the character unplayable. To use another post.

Robert Matthews wrote:
To play devil's advocate for second, I do recall a scenario that has a wight that drains CON. Not CHA, but it is drain nonetheless. I don't want to give any spoilers but I will say that it does appear in the Tier 1-2 version of that scenario. 380 GP is less than the total reward so they would likely be able to clear it at the end though.

So depending on what all needs to be cleared and what GP the character spent, it is possible to have a character down a point of CON (after paying for other things) and thus unplayable w/o being 'dead'.

"But my Con only dropped from 15 to 14! I didn't even lose HP!"

"I'm sorry Pathfinder, I can't send you on a mission like that."

"You couldn't even tell until I told you!"

"Rules is rules."

So tangental question. A character is squirrled/drained/petrified/etc but not 'dead'. Can you apply a GM credit to the character (after the unplayable event) to get enough gold to fix him?

"Corner Cases make Bad Law" Dexios Luxan, Lawyer from Hell.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

No you must clear the condition or report the character dead.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

I havnt seen anyone stay dead because of conditions. remember there are those anti-plague, ect.. can take to help Save's. Also other PC's at the table with a decent heal check can watch over you and thus help with your save.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Jeff Morse wrote:
I havnt seen anyone stay dead because of conditions. remember there are those anti-plague, ect.. can take to help Save's. Also other PC's at the table with a decent heal check can watch over you and thus help with your save.

Diseases, yes. Drain's a different issue.

Not having played or read every scenario, is there a scenario that takes place over many days (like First Steps III) that can result in taking a negative level early on, and failing the save to avoid it being permanent in the course of the scenario?

Also Jeff, isn't one of the recommendaitons of Pathfinder to NOT rely on other characters having the right skill set? I played and GMed different tables this weekend, for example, where knowledge religion would have been useful, but was not available at the table. So no one having/making a decent heal check is a possibility.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I'm of a mind that lack of common sense on the baleful polymorph and subsequent questions on wanting to know every specific condition that required resolution or being reported dead, inspired Mike to make the conservative ruling.

I'm sure the intent used to be that conditions that couldn't get worse like negative levels, some drain, or even bestow curse could carry over.

But this thread clearly showed that people would rather a strict and clear ruling than be allowed to apply a little common sense.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Oh I know common sense isn't.

It's always a fear of mine that when you get the tightest ruling, it hampers things. Baleful Polymorph leads to the death of a character with one point of WIS drain, constantly playing up leads to the inability to play up once or twice to make up for the hit of playing down, etc.

As a society player/GM, I'd hate to see a character be rendered unplayable because of a tight ruling.

Example spoilers!

Spoiler:
When I ran Nightmarch once, the first level Paladin and the higher level rogue decided they could 'take' Kol'vath. two dead characters later, the survivors freed Sulianna. Because the Paladin was still first level (and the rogue really talked him into suicide by demon, I figured she'd use her raise dead on him, but it left him with two points lost con (because he was first level). After all, he could adventure and gain gold to get the con back, and have a story to boot. Now however, there was no point.

5/5 *

The ruling I guess makes things simpler, but I'm not exactly a super fan of it.

For example, months ago, my now seeker was raised and I chose to not clear the 2 negative levels. They were written in the chronicle sheet. Next adventure, I happened to adventure with an Oracle of Life, who had it in his spell list. Had him clear them and saved me a few GP.

5/5

CRobledo wrote:

The ruling I guess makes things simpler, but I'm not exactly a super fan of it.

For example, months ago, my now seeker was raised and I chose to not clear the 2 negative levels. They were written in the chronicle sheet. Next adventure, I happened to adventure with an Oracle of Life, who had it in his spell list. Had him clear them and saved me a few GP.

I never had it affect a personal character, but I did have something like that at one of my tables. A 3rd level paladin's player had died in the previous game she played, and between she ended up only being able to gather cash for a raise dead and one restoration at the end of that scenario. She had a little left over, so she was adventuring at my table in mundane gear (half plate, cold iron weapon, and minor non-magical adventuring gear IIRC). She was a good player, and helped make the table a success, as the final fight was tough.

Now, because she would have come short in removing that last negative level the previous session, she wouldn't have been able to partake at all, and the player would lose that chance to battle back against adversity with a penalty against her and lower than expected items. I can see the flip-side too, that her not having gear appropriate for her level and a negative level would make the overall scenario harder for the group. However, in the end, I don't think it would have been a successful mission without that paladin.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only way I can see Mike loosening on this very strict ruling, is if folks can prove either in this thread, or others, that common sense will prevail.

That despite how the exactness of the Guide is written, that folks won't take ridiculous liberties that defy all common sense.

Until that happens, the strict ruling is necessary to protect us from folks who choose to throw RAW in the face of campaign leadership despite what common sense might say.

And sure, I know the argument that common sense is different depending on who you are and what your personal experiences are.

But seriously, anyone who thinks that a squirrel going on a pathfinder mission is common sense... Really!?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Michael Brock wrote:


No, it isn't allowed. There is a reason it is call Baleful. It also isn't meant to be a work around to get an AC or familiar that isn't available on the list of whatever class.

So when GMing, if a player wants to use Baleful Polymorph or Shadow Projection to turn their familiar into a killing machine can we say that's not allowed?

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

My two-penneth:

Ability drain and negative levels are relatively well understood, have limited impact on the play experience of a character, and are easy to note on a chronicle sheet without ambiguity. I believe it should be possible to carry these conditions over from one game to the next to allow them to be resolved at a later date.

Other afflictions with greater complexity or impact (specific curses, polymporphs, diseases etc.) should be resolved before closing the game.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Greg Hurst wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:


No, it isn't allowed. There is a reason it is call Baleful. It also isn't meant to be a work around to get an AC or familiar that isn't available on the list of whatever class.
So when GMing, if a player wants to use Baleful Polymorph or Shadow Projection to turn their familiar into a killing machine can we say that's not allowed?

Not sure how baleful polymorph makes a 'killing machine' but in the scenario it's allowed.

Now here's the question. Does it automatically end if you cast it on your class feature. (under the permanent spells rule) or do you have to pay to have it removed or have the character unplayable (under the curse rule). :-)

@Andrew. It is sad (to me) that people can't just 'not be Richards' at the table. :-(

Grand Lodge 5/5

Greg Hurst wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:


No, it isn't allowed. There is a reason it is call Baleful. It also isn't meant to be a work around to get an AC or familiar that isn't available on the list of whatever class.
So when GMing, if a player wants to use Baleful Polymorph or Shadow Projection to turn their familiar into a killing machine can we say that's not allowed?

To quote the spell, "As beast shape III, except that you change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD."

I dont know of a single 'killing machine' with 1HD, so yes, you could say no. :P

That said, if they really wanted to use Baleful Polymorph on their Familiar/Animal Companion/Eidolon, then sure I'd let them. Of course, at the end of the scenario, they are going to have to pay for a break enchantment to have it turned back, so that will likely deter most people from doing it.

Edit: The above is for Baleful Polymorph only. Though how Shadow Projection and Baleful Polymoph would interact could be a tricky situation.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Matthew Morris wrote:


Not sure how baleful polymorph makes a 'killing machine' but in the scenario it's allowed.

Sure, I'd allow them to cast baleful polymorph on their familiar or animal companion. And I know technically permanent spells cast by the PC don't persist past the end of a scenario (I know about the 4 exceptions in he Guide), however... baleful polymorph is a curse, and it is supposed to be a negative spell. As such, I'd make the master of the familiar or animal companion resolve the spell on their friend, or they lose their friend and have to get a new one.

For a witch or anyone with an improved familiar, this could be quite prohibitive.

Matthew Morris wrote:
@Andrew. It is sad (to me) that people can't just 'not be Richards' at the table. :-(

I agree.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Okay, serious question now. I have a 10th level PC who may have to be considered as being dead, in terms of PFS. Not sure, this thread has left me totally confused.

Is he dead?:
OCHER RHOMBOID IOUN STONE
One of Naroth’s treasures is a cursed ioun stone. PCs can tell it’s evil on even a cursory examination.
A PC who investigates the ioun stone should be able to discern its properties as normal, except that it is cursed and can’t be removed without magic (see page 536 of the Core Rulebook for more information on cursed items). Each PC should be given the choice to use the ioun stone before receiving a Chronicle sheet for the scenario, which reveals that the item is cursed.
==============================
Ioun Stone, Ocher Rhomboid
Aura strong universal [evil]; CL 12th
Slot none; Weight —; Price 30,000 gp
------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
------------------------------
This orange-colored, translucent, faceted item is an ioun stone and has the same properties. While it orbits its owner’s head, that owner gains a bonus feat. This can be any feat she meets the prerequisites for.
The ocher rhomboid ioun stone radiates an evil aura at all times, and anyone who wears it (that is, causes it to orbit her head) is considered to have committed an evil act. The alignment of the one wearing the stone shifts one step toward evil. Players who wear the stone should be given the opportunity to atone for this action before the scenario’s conclusion if such an alignment shift would result in their removal from the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign.
This ioun stone is cursed, and can’t be removed by its owner or anyone else except by the methods outlined on page 536 of the Core Rulebook.
As with other ioun stones, the ocher rhomboid has a resonant power when placed inside a wayfinder. First, it turns the wayfinder into a cursed item that can only be removed in the way the stone itself can. Second, the wearer gains Knowledge (arcana) as a class skill for as long as she wears the wayfinder.
------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
------------------------------
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, caster must be 12th level; Cost 15,000 gp
==============================
So, is this item exempt from the "conditions must be resolved" statement, or is anyone who chose to take one of these Ioun stones, whether they needed/took the Atonement or not, considered to be dead for PFS if they retain this Ioun stone as orbiting their head, and thereby both gaining the feat and having a cursed item affecting them?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Mathew Morris wrote:
Not having played or read every scenario, is there a scenario that takes place over many days (like First Steps III) that can result in taking a negative level early on, and failing the save to avoid it being permanent in the course of the scenario?

Spoiler:
Bonekeep. There's a wight for negative levels, and a few other things in there with drain i think.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:

Okay, serious question now. I have a 10th level PC who may have to be considered as being dead, in terms of PFS. Not sure, this thread has left me totally confused.

** spoiler omitted **...

Well, if I had to guess...

Spoiler:

The item actually tries to have itself resolved in its rather lengthy description, and also makes absolutely sure you know its evil, and that if you for some reason turn evil(becoming unplayable), that you then get the chance for atonement. So I'd think it resolves itself, and makes an absolutely sure you do so. I have no idea how it works in the scenario myself.

As a side note, how is taking an item an evil act and how can an ioun stone be a cursed item? They are specifically stealable by being snatched out of the air... awkward, and somewhat arbitrary.

I'd actually like an answer myself. That's a little awkward imo.

Grand Lodge 4/5

MrSin wrote:
kinevon wrote:

Okay, serious question now. I have a 10th level PC who may have to be considered as being dead, in terms of PFS. Not sure, this thread has left me totally confused.

** spoiler omitted **...

Well, if I had to guess...

** spoiler omitted **

I'd actually like an answer myself. That's a little awkward imo.

Spoiler:
Butm, from the posts in this thread, "resolved" appears to be equivalent, for curses, for having a successful Remove Curse cast. So, did my PC, for having tajken the stone, and kept it for the extra feat, just get considered dead as far as PFS is concerned?

And the curse, actually, as far as I can tell, other than the one step toward Evil alignment change, which can be negated at the cost of an Atonement, is actually a benefit, since it means that this specific Ioun stone cannot be simply grabbed out of the air, but the enemy first has to cast a successful Remove Curse on it.

Yes, overall, it is a very strange curse. It mainly prevents a PC from having to start the stone in orbit multiple times, requiring multiple Atonements...

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mathew Morris wrote:
Not having played or read every scenario, is there a scenario that takes place over many days (like First Steps III) that can result in taking a negative level early on, and failing the save to avoid it being permanent in the course of the scenario?
** spoiler omitted **

No there isn't a

Spoiler:
wight
anywhere in Bonekeep.
Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

kinevon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
kinevon wrote:

Okay, serious question now. I have a 10th level PC who may have to be considered as being dead, in terms of PFS. Not sure, this thread has left me totally confused.

** spoiler omitted **...

Well, if I had to guess...

** spoiler omitted **

I'd actually like an answer myself. That's a little awkward imo.

** spoiler omitted **

That item is a special, one time exception. Enjoy your evil item.

5/5 5/55/55/5

d'OH:
THORNkeep, sorry.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Michael Brock wrote:
kinevon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
kinevon wrote:

Okay, serious question now. I have a 10th level PC who may have to be considered as being dead, in terms of PFS. Not sure, this thread has left me totally confused.

** spoiler omitted **...

Well, if I had to guess...

** spoiler omitted **

I'd actually like an answer myself. That's a little awkward imo.

** spoiler omitted **
That item is a special, one time exception. Enjoy your evil item.

Thanks! That's what I thought, and it would have made a mess of my PaizoCon schedule if it were otherwise. Planning on playing the rest of the Lissala scenarios with the same PC.

Spoiler:
Bwhahaha!

Spoiler:
And the Thornkeep wight is only going to be an issue when it is one of the rare second level PCs running through it, and the party decides to retreat and rest afterwards. After all, if it hits a first level PC, that one is dead.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Matthew Morris wrote:
Jeff Morse wrote:
I havnt seen anyone stay dead because of conditions. remember there are those anti-plague, ect.. can take to help Save's. Also other PC's at the table with a decent heal check can watch over you and thus help with your save.

Diseases, yes. Drain's a different issue.

Not having played or read every scenario, is there a scenario that takes place over many days (like First Steps III) that can result in taking a negative level early on, and failing the save to avoid it being permanent in the course of the scenario?

Also Jeff, isn't one of the recommendaitons of Pathfinder to NOT rely on other characters having the right skill set? I played and GMed different tables this weekend, for example, where knowledge religion would have been useful, but was not available at the table. So no one having/making a decent heal check is a possibility.

Im really bad at typing short sentences and thus not getting everything in my head out. Was trying to point out that a 50 gold piece item and some assistance from a heal skill (PC or hireling) can help with poisons or disease. As for that neg level that is PP or gold, if no caster in party that can do it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:

Guide 4.3 reworded it. Even if it is a non-con damaging affliction, the Society will not send you on a mission if you are diseased, have a poison wracked body, or are cursed in some way that makes you nearly non-functional or potentially dangerous to your team.

You must clear these afflictions before the end of a scenario, or you are reported as dead.

The only exceptions to that rule are those noted on specific Chronicles.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks to those of you who insist on skirting every damn rule to the edge of lunacy, we now have an overarching rule that hurts low level (and new) players. You have in one stroke caused more dead players than any other stupid-request to date. So thank you.

Before we could live with a negative level or a point of drain until we could afford to deal with the issue. Now, as Mike has made clear, we need to:

"drain needs to be cleared at the end of the scenario."
"you have to dispel negative levels at the end of an adventure."

So playing through a certain level 2 module now carries the distinct risk of death. Walking away from a point or two of wisdom drain (not reoccurring drain like from a disease or poison mind you) from an Alip at level 3 means you're dead. All you've done is hurt low-level play.

I don't blame Mike. He's trying to manage some semblance of control over absolute bat-crazy concepts that by all intents and purposes should be reasonably not allowed (such as the idea that it's okay to play with a squirrel) with a rule that's more generic.

I hope long term Mike can come up with a better solution, but for now, thanks a ton those of you who pressed this issue.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

@Mr Slanky

it also makes death more expensive. It's no longer "Raise me now, I'll handle the neg levels later."

I don't blame Mike for the ruling, either.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

When we finally learn the new wealth/playing-up rules and I start having to explain them to players in my area, I expect there will be some negative reactions from some proportion of players. I plan to respond to such reactions with something along the lines of "There used to me a much looser system that didn't have [whatever critique the person makes], but certain people gamed the system so severely that they had to be stopped for the health of the campaign; that's why you now have to deal with these new rules. I'm sorry."

Until such time as a more precise solution to the polymorph issue replaces Mike's recent comments, I'll probably say something similar when it comes up.

Let's ask ourselves two things regularly, folks:
1) Is what I'm doing the kind of thing that leads to situations like the new wealth rules and the "clear everything" change?

2) Am I overreacting against legitimately creative/skilled ideas so much that when it really matters, referencing #1 is going to sound like I'm just crying 'wolf' again instead of actually getting anyone to check their behavior?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:

But seriously, anyone who thinks that a squirrel going on a pathfinder mission is common sense... Really!?

Well... if he could get a Green Lantern power ring? Maybe that's why the Lantern Lodge is being closed down. So what color ring do you think our former faction leader has been recruited by? I'd say Orange because she's keeping it all to herself. :)


kinevon wrote:
Okay, serious question now. I have a 10th level PC who may have to be considered as being dead, in terms of PFS. Not sure, this thread has left me totally confused.

I can't believe you actually got an answer to that question.

Kudos to Mike for having enough patience to answer that nonsense.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Ok, we've spent enough time deriding or chastising those who chose a different route than what the current ruling supports.

Lets now turn our attention to re-writing the section of the guide dealing with diseases and other afflictions, so that it both covers the obvious common sense items that need to be cleared, without being so severe that it hinders low level play.

Two stipulations:

1) It can't be less strict than what's already in the guide.
2) It cannot contain a list or lists that may or may not need to be modified everytime some new source gets printed.

The potential problem without an exhaustive list, is that common sense still needs to be used.

As a player base, we cannot keep bending, and bending, and bending the line of what's reasonable. So by some of the folks who chose to argue against baleful polymorph needing to be cleared at the end of a scenario, participating in this rewording, it might just make a difference in whether Mike Brock accepts such a re-write.

This is not an official request from Mike Brock. This is just me, as a Venture-Officer recognizing the impact the severe ruling has on the game, and seeing if common sense can prevail amongst the player base.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Challenge accepted.

I'd say that there needs to be a clear line between impaired and inoperative.

Stat drain (as long as Stat > 0) and negative levels, for example, will be impared, but a disease that can (mathmatically) drop you to zero can/will render you inoperative. Any spell, spell like, or supernatural effect with a duration of Permanent must also be resolved. (That should cover curses and stuff like baleful polymorph)

Fluff-wise it would be, "The Pathfinder Society is always short handed, and sometimes will call on its members even if they are recovering from previous missions. Despite this, the Grand Lodge will not send a member on a mission if they suffer from any of the following conditions:"

  • Suffering from an ongoing illness
  • An ability score drained to zero
  • An ongoing spell, spell-like, or supernatural effect that has a negative impact on the character (e.g. baleful polymorph.)
  • Curses

    If a GM has a character who can *start* a mission with what he deems as a harmful effect, he can ask that the effect be cleared prior to the scenario starting. The table can pool resources to remove the condition, or the player can play another level appropriate character or an iconic, using all the associated rules therof. (This does not include character death)

    (The last paragraph gives a GM some leeway if a character shows up and has an effect that he feels will be detrimental to the table, but not specifically called out.)

  • Liberty's Edge 5/5

    I like it so far, lets keep the ideas coming.

    Matthew, with what you wrote, bestow curse would be a condition that would get you marked as dead. Same with blindness/deafness.

    Are these conditions you intended to be included?

    1/5

    What is this scenario that doesn't even award 380GP to clear ability drain? Mike Brock's post is a clarification. The page that Andy keeps referencing that mentions afflictions talks about negative levels, blindness, etc. It then says all afflictions and diseases have to be resolved as mentioned in an earlier chapter. The earlier chapter only mentioned diseases bringing up a discrepancy. If BP had to be cleared, then so did blindness, negative levels, etc because they are mentioned on the same page in the same section.
    I always look at rules for everything with a heavy dose of logic. Most likely due to my IT background and being an on/off magic player. Common sense is subjective so you cannot rely on it in a rules system such as this.

    My 2 cp

    Liberty's Edge 5/5

    Robert A Matthews wrote:

    What is this scenario that doesn't even award 380GP to clear ability drain? Mike Brock's post is a clarification. The page that Andy keeps referencing that mentions afflictions talks about negative levels, blindness, etc. It then says all afflictions and diseases have to be resolved as mentioned in an earlier chapter. The earlier chapter only mentioned diseases bringing up a discrepancy. If BP had to be cleared, then so did blindness, negative levels, etc because they are mentioned on the same page in the same section.

    I always look at rules for everything with a heavy dose of logic. Most likely due to my IT background and being an on/off magic player. Common sense is subjective so you cannot rely on it in a rules system such as this.

    My 2 cp

    I understand Robert, but the Guide is at 50 pages, and we don't want to make it any bigger than we have to.

    It also is an amalgamation of different writers from 2008 through present including Josh Frost, Mark Moreland, Hyrum Savage, and Mike Brock (amongst many others I'm sure, that I have no idea who they are).

    As we update the guide, every 6 months or so, there are bound to be instances like this, where discrepancies happen. And with the entire rules set having ambiguities anyways, we have to rely on common sense to get us through various rulings.

    So while I think we want to mitigate the need for using a subjective measuring tool like common sense as much as possible, it is impossible to do away with entirely. And when you have a proliferation of lack of common sense, you get hard core on/off rulings like we just got.

    The problem is, what's common sense for me, may or may not be common sense for someone else.

    But by and large, there are certain things that are just plain and simple common sense, and those who argue against it, cannot use the subjective nature of common sense to say what they are arguing is such.

    This is one of those situations.

    And for those who understood the common sense nature of baleful polymorph and still argued against what was being said about the spell needing to be cleared at the end of a scenario, all I have to ask is "why?!"

    Was it just to argue a meaningless point?

    Was it not truly understanding what the argument was really about?

    Was it just being obstinate?

    Was it arguing specifically with me because you like to prove me wrong?

    Just because the guide doesn't clearly spell out absolutely everything, you still have to apply a liberal dose of common sense.

    Does it make sense that the Society would send "X" on a mission? If not, then you have your common sense answer.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5

    Matthew Morris wrote:

    Challenge accepted.

    I'd say that there needs to be a clear line between impaired and inoperative.

    Stat drain (as long as Stat > 0) and negative levels, for example, will be impared, but a disease that can (mathmatically) drop you to zero can/will render you inoperative. Any spell, spell like, or supernatural effect with a duration of Permanent must also be resolved. (That should cover curses and stuff like baleful polymorph)

    Fluff-wise it would be, "The Pathfinder Society is always short handed, and sometimes will call on its members even if they are recovering from previous missions. Despite this, the Grand Lodge will not send a member on a mission if they suffer from any of the following conditions:"

  • Suffering from an ongoing illness
  • An ability score drained to zero
  • An ongoing spell, spell-like, or supernatural effect that has a negative impact on the character (e.g. baleful polymorph.)
  • Curses

    If a GM has a character who can *start* a mission with what he deems as a harmful effect, he can ask that the effect be cleared prior to the scenario starting. The table can pool resources to remove the condition, or the player can play another level appropriate character or an iconic, using all the associated rules therof. (This does not include character death)

    (The last paragraph gives a GM some leeway if a character shows up and has an effect that he feels will be detrimental to the table, but not specifically called out.)

  • The wording should include for conditions that must be cleared at the end of a scenario, "and be reported as dead."

    51 to 100 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Baleful polymorph All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.