2-21 Dalsine Affair *Possible Spoilers*

[Netopalis]

Finlanderboy wrote:

A definition of cheat: to elude; deprive of something expected:. So I am sorry that fills that definition.

You are not staff and your threat o have my post removed means nothing. If asked by staff or presented information from staff then I will follow that. Honestly threatening people for expressing their opinions with fictuous threats is more likely to be removed. That is like me saying "Mike brock will delete your characters if you do not agree with me". It is the same poison ayou are spouting.

For the 6-7 tier the person was asking abotu they are hardly low level. But your lawyer interpretation maybe be different.

It also says this in the guide that you refuse to acknowledge

"Given the dangers characters face once they have made
the choice to become Pathfinders, character death is a very
real possibility (and a necessary one to maintain a sense of
risk and danger in the game)."

Also what happened to run scenarios as written. I have seen that many many many times.

You should just have events where you read the scneraio to people, leave their dice at home, and then sign the chronicle for them when you finish reading it.

I think you are dishonest in my opinion. The people you cheated through adventures were thought to believe they earned the adventure, and it was given to them

First of all, as I said, I really would rather not have this thread devolve like the other one did. If you would like to continue this after I return from my convention, feel free to start a new thread.

Next, my post was not a threat, I was simply observing that posts calling me a cheater over this have been removed in the past, and that if Paizo felt so strongly that I was a negative to the campaign, it is unlikely they would have done that.

Third, I glanced over the fact that this was 6-7. As you will note above, when I noticed that, I said, "Go for it, then." I wouldn't do that in a 6-7 game - as I have stated on numerous occasions, I only do this with very low level characters.

I acknowledge that there is and should be a risk of death, and the same exists at my table - all I do is negate crit threats that would put a PC to negative con at level 1. I feel that when a PC dies, it should be the player's fault, not the fault of the scenario author. If the party makes poor decisions and fails to run when things are looking bad, I'll kill the PCs. I won't kill a PC in a surprise round at level 1, though. It's the easiest way to turn off players and to make the game unfun for everybody. What is gained by doing it? Nothing.

[CyrusC2010]

The way I see it, is it allowable for a player in a given scenario combat, upon "critting", to elect not to "use" that crit (possibly something that might even earn the ire of any fellow players at the table)? If so, then that same courtesy should be extended to a GM, if that GM elected to not "use/confirm" a crit.

[Tim Vincent]

Netopalis wrote:

I feel that when a PC dies, it should be the player's

fault, not the fault of the scenario author.

Set some standards for scenarios you choose to run and then keep them.

If you think a scenario is "at fault" don't run it. Ever. Even if someone requests it.

I don't plan on ever running the horrible scenario in question. Nothing will change my mind.

[Chris Lambertz]

A note to please remember that personal insults do not help the conversation. Discussion about fudging rolls or cheating should be taken to a different thread.

[thistledown]

Since the new Inner Sea Gods book has retconned out the entire first half of the scenario, what are we supposed to do?

[Sniggevert]

thistledown wrote:

Since the new Inner Sea Gods book has retconned out the entire first half of the scenario, what are we supposed to do?

And what specifically has been retconned? I had assumed you were talking about the outlawing of the worship of Sarenrae in Taldor, but could see nothing changing that in the Sarenrae write up...

[thistledown]

It's in the sidebar in the sarenrae section - "never one to turn their back on a good deity, the nation of taldor supports a number of temples devoted to sarenrae"

[Branding Opportunity]

You could simply say that the Cult of the Dawnflower in Dalsine Affair is a splinter cult that has been declared illegal by the Taldan government, perhaps for secretly supporting the government of Qadira. The ongoing political tensions between Taldor and Qadira have NOT been retconned, as far as I know.

[Rogue Eidolon]

I'm hoping that for PFS, since there's more than just this adventure supporting the ban on Sarenrae (plus some characters whose entire concept is built around the fact that Sarenrae is banned in Taldor, like Linda's Taldor faction Dawnflower Dervish), we can do something cool and have the law exist and then have it changed as part of the ongoing story of the Taldor faction to match Inner Sea Gods, rather than retcon it away and leave those other scenarios without even the "it was back in time" to stand on.

Having that law officially changed would be a big win for the Taldor faction of Pathfinders, Gloriana Morilla, and Princess Eutropia.

[Mattastrophic]

Apparently, that retcon might not actually have occurred, and the ban is still on. I can't post a link right now, but Mark Moreland said as such in the Inner Sea Combat product discussion, and I believe James Jacobs confirmed that the ban is still on in a necro-ed thread about the topic.

Edit: The Moreland Correction.

Edit2: The Jacobs Correction.

-Matt

[Barillas]

I have a question about the final encounter with the magus.

Spoiler:

In his statblock, it states

"Chalfon attempts to use his spell combat and
spellstrike abilities each round, making two melee attacks
with his rapier, each at a –2 penalty, and channeling a touch
attack through one of the two attacks."

On my first read-through, it sounds like he effectively has three attacks, even in the low tier: two melee attacks with the rapier, AND the damage from the spell being channeled from the spellstrike ability. I know from the magus abilities that there is no additional role associated with delivering the spell through the weapon, but I still can't seem to find a reason why there would be two melee attacks.

Is this correct? Or is it just questionably worded, and actually means two melee attacks, one being the rapier and one effectively being the melee touch attack from the spell? Because 3 attacks in low tier against potentially 1st level characters sounds like an almost guaranteed kill to me. I want to make sure I'm interpreting it correctly.

[Aaron C. Malone]

The magus has 2 attacks when casting a spell, both at a -2 to hit. Say if you cast Shocking Grasp, you get to deliver it with your rapier. You still have to hit normal AC (if they have metal armor, you get +3 to hit), but the spell isn't discharged until you hit.

[Barillas]

Pennydude wrote:

The magus has 2 attacks when casting a spell, both at a -2 to hit. Say if you cast Shocking Grasp, you get to deliver it with your rapier. You still have to hit normal AC (if they have metal armor, you get +3 to hit), but the spell isn't discharged until you hit.

So when it's talking about delivering multiple hits, it's just suggesting that if you have a spell already applied to your weapon, your full-round action looks like: Attack with Rapier (delivers applied spell, effectively 1d6 damage + X from applied spell), then Attack from off-hand spell being cast as if Two-Weapon Fighting (per spell combat)?

[KingOfAnything]

A magus' spellstrike ability allows them to channel a touch attack through their weapon when making a normal attack with that weapon.

A typical magus full-round attack goes something like:
1. Cast Shocking Grasp
2. Make first attack with rapier (at -2)[this is the free attack granted from casting a touch spell]
3. Make second attack (at -2) [this is the other attack for using spell combat]

If the first attack misses, you still hold the charge and can deliver it with the second attack, if it hits.

You don't get a second attack if the spell is already on your weapon, you must cast during the round in order to get a second attack.

[TriOmegaZero]

Basically, Spell Combat and Spell Strike can be combined. So the off-hand spell he casts using Spell Combat can be delivered through a melee attack with his rapier as a Spellstrike.

His attack would be: Attack with Rapier (if he has a held spell from before, it would discharge on a hit), then Spell Combat to cast a spell and make a free melee attack with Spellstrike in place of the free touch attack. If he has a held spell from before and misses his first attack, then when he casts the second using Spell Combat, he would lose the held spell due to not being able to maintain the charge while casting a new spell.

I hope that was clear enough.

[Barillas]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

I hope that was clear enough.

I think so! But to make sure I have it down now, the high tier attack sequence would like like this?

Spoiler:

1) Spellstrike + Spell Combat spell delivery through rapier
2) Full BAB attack with rapier
3) Full BAB attack with rapier (from haste)
4) Iterative attack with rapier (-5)

Is this correct?

[UndeadMitch]

Correct.

[kinevon]

UndeadMitch wrote:

Correct.

But remember that all those attacks suffer a -2 from using spell combat.

[UndeadMitch]

kinevon wrote:

UndeadMitch wrote:

Correct.

But remember that all those attacks suffer a -2 from using spell combat.

Yep, that was already covered.

[Nathan Goodrich]

Ran this last night. Chalfon came predictably close to claiming some heads, but ultimately failed. I never got a threat with his spell attacks.

The 3-4 tier black widow spider actually came closer. It poisoned the party wizard and did 12 Con damage before the poison ran its course. If they hadn't taken the pregen Seelah they wouldn't have had a Lesser Restoration available and the wizard would have died on the spot! The DC 17 Con poison has the potential to be really nasty.

[andreww]

Nathan Goodrich wrote:

Ran this last night. Chalfon came predictably close to claiming some heads, but ultimately failed. I never got a threat with his spell attacks.

The 3-4 tier black widow spider actually came closer. It poisoned the party wizard and did 12 Con damage before the poison ran its course. If they hadn't taken the pregen Seelah they wouldn't have had a Lesser Restoration available and the wizard would have died on the spot! The DC 17 Con poison has the potential to be really nasty.

That spider killed a level 2 Con 10 bard who ran into melee when I ran it. It is really quite dangerous.