Guide 4.2 and Changes to Pathfinder Society Organized Play

be careful doing that keht.

someone posted something about watching out for animal companions and using push also---basically to command your animal companion to do certain things would require a standard action. They are not another you--or as intelligent as an eidelon. so you can't run them as another you.

now you as a druid in beast form?---yeah you are basically a synthesist. but good luck being in huge form in PFS dungeons. and huge form gives you the best dps

me I would take lion shaman--have lion animal companion. you basically can become a dire lion or greater---have a dire lion or greater animal companion. and SNA a pack of them to fight with you. having 5-6 dire lions on the board---2 of you magic'ed

Zauron, Aasimar are actually much better than you think. There are six alternate heritages (descended from angels, archons etc.) that give bonuses for different stats.

I'm honestly a bit worried that with Blood of Angels, Aasimar become too good to pass up for many classes/builds. I suppose humans were already that way for feat-intensive builds, though.

I was just basing the stats from a quick look at the bestiary. If you can change the ability scores around, then I see very few reasons why someone would choose to not play one, stat wise.

That said I am going to take those chronicles and make the cheesiest optimized character possible, wish me luck.

Make it? Fine. Play it in PFS? Not so much.

The Core Assumption

While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

Pretty much the list of optimised races has dropped to

Human (feat intensive classes)

Half elf (multiclassed characters or eldritch heritage based characters, immune to sleep effects)

Aasimar (Paladins, Clerics, Dragon Disciples, Sorcerers, Oracles, Archers)

Tiefling (Everything else including some from the Aasimar list)

The point being moot depending on if the difficulty scales to take into account the PCs enhanced capabilities compared to earlier seasons

Keht wrote:

That said I am going to take those chronicles and make the cheesiest optimized character possible, wish me luck.

Make it? Fine. Play it in PFS? Not so much.

Guide to Organized Play V4.2 wrote:

The Core Assumption

While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

and?

synthesist was not the only--not even the MOST powerful cheesiest character out there. It was out dpr'ed by 3 cheese builds that are still allowed and being played. so if he picked one of those, why wouldn't he be playing in PFS? other's are. Get in the wrong group and out of the four or five combats in a typical pfs encounter, you won't even get in an action.

I really like the additional races being opened up even thou I am full up on toons to play atm.

Humans will remain strong either with feat intensive builds, dual talent archetype, plus spells known favored class option. I really do not see humans getting dislodged from the most populous race.

Keht wrote:

That said I am going to take those chronicles and make the cheesiest optimized character possible, wish me luck.

Make it? Fine. Play it in PFS? Not so much.

Guide to Organized Play V4.2 wrote:

The Core Assumption

While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

I am not sure what that statement from the PFS guide has to do with optimizing my character.

I am not sure why people hate it so much when others want to game outside their box (well I am, but trying to be civil). Everyone has different motivations for playing. Some like to build characters, some like combat strategy and some like to pretend they are back in high school drama club. Who cares how you play the game as long as you have fun? It is no ones mission to convert the world to their elitist form of gaming.

Does optimizing or creating cheese make me a jerk? Or should everyone's character be created for the lowest common denominator? if you decide to build a wizard with a 7 int because you want to prove how clever of a roll player you are then go for it. Don't expect everyone else to gimp their own characters because you cant cast a level 1 spell. Not everyone is going to sing songs when playing a bard so let them play how they wish.

This wasn't specifically pointed at JohnF. When I used "you" I was generalizing towards the groups of people being discussed. I have no clue if JohnF falls into this group, he only inspired my rant and it was not personal towards him.

In military fashion I have executed the orders given and rerolled as listed to the letter. I have one request for consideration and if everyone disagrees with me i'm already 4.2 legal.

Perhaps in this case or future "situational rerolls" that you consider allowing a character to start from the literal beginning. (i.e. race, traits etc..)

If anyone else is like me I focus everything around the "concept" of an archetype. For example how I became a Synthesist (background)and how that would change my behavior.What is the theme behind my form? What race fits this theme and such. I pick race, traits, etc.. to fit that personality

Examples are like choosing an orc because you take the aspect of a beast. Or picking a trait that allows the player intimidate as a class skill because being a merged creature can be rather intimidating etc...

By no means do I want free re-rolls or optimization "whilly nilly" but in these rare circumstance where the entire concept of a character must be redesigned I ask for your consideration in these areas.

Thank you for your time
-Mal
"I aim to misbehave"

In military fashion I have executed the orders given and rerolled as listed to the letter. I have one request for consideration and if everyone disagrees with me i'm already 4.2 legal.

Perhaps in this case or future "situational rerolls" that you consider allowing a character to start from the literal beginning. (i.e. race, traits etc..)

If anyone else is like me I focus everything around the "concept" of an archetype. For example how I became a Synthesist (background)and how that would change my behavior.What is the theme behind my form? What race fits this theme and such. I pick race, traits, etc.. to fit that personality

Examples are like choosing an orc because you take the aspect of a beast. Or picking a trait that allows the player intimidate as a class skill because being a merged creature can be rather intimidating etc...

By no means do I want free re-rolls or optimization "whilly nilly" but in these rare circumstance where the entire concept of a character must be redesigned I ask for your consideration in these areas.

Thank you for your time
-Mal
"I aim to misbehave"

I seriously second this concept, because when I build a character, I plan out the way they're going to end up working from start to finish with the resources available.

Seeing as how I have to figure out a new route for one of my characters (was headed into a banned archetype), I'm sitting here scratching my head and wishing I'd chosen differently, 'cause now the build and traits don't really line up. And because I'd only entered one level of the banned class before now, I only get to rebuild the one level, which kinda... makes the character a bit harder to pull off.

And now, I have to redo that level, but the traits/feats I'd picked, that technically are still legal, but don't really effect the build anymore, I'm stuck with. It's a low level character, so I'm not wasting that many chronicles on abandoning it if I can't make it work, but it's still kinda annoying.

EDIT: Especially since in the guide it states that if a class is changed or removed, you get a full rebuild up to current exp, but this blog entry specifically states you can only rebuild the effected levels, not the whole character (who's concept may have been entirely based on those archetypes).

From the additional resources

Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels
Heritages: all heritages on pages 21–23 are legal

Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Fiends
Heritages: all heritages on pages 18–23 are legal

So yes the heritages are open (giving specific alterations to stat boosts, SLA and skill boosts) which means you will see alot of angel blooded aasimars with +2St +2Cha for paladins (no negative stats and pluses in both the paladins core abilities), its why im not 100% happy about the race release, but like I said its up to the campaign management and they feel its a good idea.

I generally agree that I would have preferred to see more Eastern races open up versus plane-touched ones, which I feel should be rarer. Plus, given the past year's meta-plot focused a great deal on Eastern theme, it would make sense as a sort of "reward" for completing the arc.

That said, I'm ecstatic the variant heritages are being allowed. This allows for so many flavors of Tiefling & Aasimar from both a mechanical and role-play perspective that it has my excitement overriding my original preference.

Caderyn wrote:

From the additional resources

Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels
Heritages: all heritages on pages 21–23 are legal

Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Fiends
Heritages: all heritages on pages 18–23 are legal

So yes the heritages are open (giving specific alterations to stat boosts, SLA and skill boosts) which means you will see alot of angel blooded aasimars with +2St +2Cha for paladins (no negative stats and pluses in both the paladins core abilities), its why im not 100% happy about the race release, but like I said its up to the campaign management and they feel its a good idea.

I generally agree that I would have preferred to see more Eastern races open up versus plane-touched ones, which I feel should be rarer. Plus, given the past year's meta-plot focused a great deal on Eastern theme, it would make sense as a sort of "reward" for completing the arc.

That said, I'm ecstatic the variant heritages are being allowed. This allows for so many flavors of Tiefling & Aasimar from both a mechanical and role-play perspective that it has my excitement overriding my original preference.

While I totally agree, I think the reason it's the planetouched and tengu and not the Tian races is because the eastern races are more recently added, and the Tiefling/Aasimar/Tengu trio were some of the first race boons available, so they're the oldest in society circulation.

This wasn't specifically pointed at JohnF. When I used "you" I was generalizing towards the groups of people being discussed. I have no clue if JohnF falls into this group, he only inspired my rant and it was not personal towards him.

No personal intent taken. Please read this followup the same way, too.

The reference to the "don't be a jerk" rule was a reminder that PFS organized play is supposed to be a cooperative activity. Having a highly-optimised character at the table is not, in itself, a problem. Playing that character in such a way as to deliberately diminish (or deny) the enjoyment of fellow players, however, is disregarding that rule.

But the same sort of criticism can equally well be levelled at the gimped character. PFS assumes you are going to be adventuring with a group of companions, cooperating and contributing towards a common goal. Bringing a totally ineffective character to the table is every bit as bad as bringing "the cheesiest optimised character possible". In fact it's probably worse - it's possible to under-play an optimised character, but it's a lot harder to rescue a poorly-built character.

Finally - just how acceptable a mega-optimised character is depends a great deal on where you play. If you always game with the same group of friends, and everybody has an advanced degree in system mastery, go for it! (although you probably won't find much challenge in most PFS scenarios). But if you're playing at a game store or convention where you don't know who'll be at the table, be prepared to dial the intensity back a bit.

Keht wrote:

This wasn't specifically pointed at JohnF. When I used "you" I was generalizing towards the groups of people being discussed. I have no clue if JohnF falls into this group, he only inspired my rant and it was not personal towards him.

No personal intent taken. Please read this followup the same way, too.

The reference to the "don't be a jerk" rule was a reminder that PFS organized play is supposed to be a cooperative activity. Having a highly-optimised character at the table is not, in itself, a problem. Playing that character in such a way as to deliberately diminish (or deny) the enjoyment of fellow players, however, is disregarding that rule.

But the same sort of criticism can equally well be levelled at the gimped character. PFS assumes you are going to be adventuring with a group of companions, cooperating and contributing towards a common goal. Bringing a totally ineffective character to the table is every bit as bad as bringing "the cheesiest optimised character possible". In fact it's probably worse - it's possible to under-play an optimised character, but it's a lot harder to rescue a poorly-built character.

Finally - just how acceptable a mega-optimised character is depends a great deal on where you play. If you always game with the same group of friends, and everybody has an advanced degree in system mastery, go for it! (although you probably won't find much challenge in most PFS scenarios). But if you're playing at a game store or convention where you don't know who'll be at the table, be prepared to dial the intensity back a bit.

Well said, agree completely.

Frankthedm wrote:

Good Call on the no changing ability scores! Folks rigged their scores to take advantage of the system with a obviously OP class. They got caught and now they get to keep their scores :D

Yes, taking those 10s in Strenght and Dexterity was really rigging the system. As opposed to say: melee classes dumping Intelligence and Charisma.

It still leaves the character unable to effectively fulfill the role for which he was build. With a relallocation of stats I could still manage, even without changing base class, but not as stands.

Now, if I want cheese, I could build a druid that is an order of magnitude more powerful than any synthesist. Is that going to be the next class people scream to have banned?

Good call, except Mike noted several reasons for removing said classes. And being overpowered, min/max characters wasn't the reason he listed.

Especially since in the guide it states that if a class is changed or removed, you get a full rebuild up to current exp, but this blog entry specifically states you can only rebuild the effected levels, not the whole character (who's concept may have been entirely based on those archetypes).

The section in the Guide that says that is specifically regarding playtest content. None of the removed archetypes have been in playtest for a long time, if they were allowed under playtest rules at all.

Remember, to play a new race, you have to have the material on hand. So go get an ARG and Blood of Angels and make those characters!

JohnF wrote:

Keht wrote:

That said I am going to take those chronicles and make the cheesiest optimized character possible, wish me luck.

Make it? Fine. Play it in PFS? Not so much.

Guide to Organized Play V4.2 wrote:

The Core Assumption

While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

and?

synthesist was not the only--not even the MOST powerful cheesiest character out there. It was out dpr'ed by 3 cheese builds that are still allowed and being played. so if he picked one of those, why wouldn't he be playing in PFS? other's are. Get in the wrong group and out of the four or five combats in a typical pfs encounter, you won't even get in an action.

I think that you're kind of missing the point, here, Hakken. The dude's post was written with a tone that sounded like he was going to take his toys and go home, but, before he did, it seems as though he was going to make a character that would piss off a bunch of other players. Worst, he sounded like that's what the intent was ... just to make an optimized character because he was pissed off about losing his toy. so, he's throwing a fit, crying about it, and saying how we'll all rue the day that we took his toy away.

Mind you, this is nothing but tone. It's nothing more than the way I've read his posts, and the way that he came across to me, personally. Basically, it seemed to me as though another player felt he was being a jerk, and called him on it. No one likes it when people post on the boards that they're planning - in advance - on intentinoally doing something jsut to be rude to other players. It's not about his build, it's not about his cheese. It's about him decalring on the boards that he's gonna do it to be mean to others, because he feels slighted by the new rules. He's not taking it up with the administration, he's gonna be pissy to us, the other players.
So, They quoted the rule - seeming to indicate that they could be asked to not participate if that person continued to be a jerk.

And I agree with them.

... And because I'd only entered one level of the banned class before now, I only get to rebuild the one level, which kinda... makes the character a bit harder to pull off.

Maybe I'm confused ... when Mike reversed the ruling, because of the quoted material on rebuilds from the guide, did that not open the whole thing for rebuilds? By which, I mean a rebuild up to current XP? I didn't think that I saw anything provisional about that. But, maybe I need to go back and look it up and see what he said. I presumed since the quote was for a rebuild to current XP, that's what Maike was granting.

Remember, to play a new race, you have to have the material on hand. So go get an ARG and Blood of Angels and make those characters!

Todd, aasimars and tieflings are in Bestiary I, yes? And that's part of the core assumption?

I've felt bad over the past year, GMing at conventions and helping the convention staff distribute racial boons to people who don't own the bestiaries. I felt like we were telling them: "here's something really cool for your next character. By the way, it'll cost you money if you want to use it." I felt better when they won some boon like devil-slayer.

It was pointed out to me that aasimar and tieflings are in bestiary I, so they don't need to buy anything to play theose races. (Tengu are in bestiary II, which is not part of the core assumption. If somebody wants to play a Tengu, she'll need to bring a legal copy of that race to the table.)

It's only $10 for the PDF Chris. Generally if you can afford to be at a convention to get a boon, you can afford the appropriate PDF. Worst case, ask someone else to print the page for you.

Todd Morgan wrote:

Remember, to play a new race, you have to have the material on hand. So go get an ARG and Blood of Angels and make those characters!

Todd, aasimars and tieflings are in Bestiary I, yes? And that's part of the core assumption?

Chris,

The Player's Core Assumption includes the Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Guide to Organized Play. As a player, anything outside of those three documents require the player to bring the book/rules to the game.

The can also have access to the PRD at the table for another option.

(Tengu are in bestiary II, which is not part of the core assumption. If somebody wants to play a Tengu, she'll need to bring a legal copy of that race to the table.)

Tengu is in the Bestiary I actually.

And no, the PRD is resource on the GM Core Assumption list, not the player one.

Re: Tiefling/Aasimar/Tengu/Other boon races.

It seems to me that the 'reward' aspect is tied into owning the items.

Player has Bestiary: They get to use the 'stock' critter.
Player has ARG: They get to use 'stock' critter, and features in that book.
Player has Blood of X (Blood of chickens for Tengu?): They get to use that book.

To use Dex as an example, he uses APG (Inquisitor) ARG (Prehensile tail, fiendish hide, claws) and Blood of Fiends (Devil Touched bloodline). I agree that if you win X boon at a con, it could be seen as being 'punished' by having to have the book. OTOH, is it a 'punishment' for me to have to have all the sources above, to use them with Dex? No more than it is to have the different books I get Rey's sage blood line, snapdragon fireworks and hakiramaki from.

Swiftbrook wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Take Boat wrote:

So do full-level rebuilds get to change their ability scores or are we going to have a bunch of ex-synthesists running around with hilariously dumped physical scores?

No, people do not get to change ability scores.

You're the GM but I don't see this as following the rules as written....

PFGOP 4.2 page 28 wrote:

If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment.

Stats are part of a PC's build. When anyone builds a character, weather using a point-buy or rolled stats, they look at the stats as part of the PC build. It's hard to have a fun, playable Fighter with a low strength, constitution and dexterity. Stats are part of a PC's build.

I stand corrected. Yes, any of the five affected archetypes are able to adjust their ability scores to make their character playable. Thanks for pointing that out Swift.

Mike,

I will accept your ruling on it no matter what it is, you have been more than fair, but consider my point.

There has to be a line somewhere and that is where I've placed it. Any race can realistically be any class so there is no need to rebuild the race as well.

What is simple and has worked for double-barreled weapons in our group is only letting the double-fire function once per round per such weapon wielded [so twice for the dual-wielders].

After this, you continue to receive your free-action reloads if you have them, but it is to one barrel at a time as you are busy firing.

This lets you put out the same amount of metal in the air as a bow.

What is simple and has worked for double-barreled weapons in our group is only letting the double-fire function once per round per such weapon wielded [so twice for the dual-wielders].

Unfortunately that's not RAW and therefore not a legal ruling in Pathfinder Society.

Jamie Charlan wrote:

What is simple and has worked for double-barreled weapons in our group is only letting the double-fire function once per round per such weapon wielded [so twice for the dual-wielders].

Unfortunately that's not RAW and therefore not a legal ruling in Pathfinder Society.

I disagree. This may indeed be RAW, depending on your interpretation of the double-barreled pistol wording. I contend that;

'each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action, or both can be shot at once with the same action.'

can mean that on a full attack action, you can fire the second barrel with one of your attacks as you're taking one full attack action, not X attack actions in sequence.

It doesn't say 'you can fire both barrels on every attack you take within a full attack action', after all; you can fire both with the same action. A full attack action is one action. This turns it into Manyshot with a -4 penalty, per pistol.

That's the reading that I intend to stand by, should this ever arise at my table.

Ninjaiguana: That's how our group figured the RAW was meaning it.
Still, wouldn't be bad for rules to get changed as errata once in a while; no need for things like crossbows to forever be the worst.

I've always assumed that they meant a double-barrelled weapon to only be fired with both barrels as a standard action. That's how our gunslinger does it at our PFS game. He doesn't try to full attack with both barrels, or at least I haven't seen him try.

Jack-of-Blades wrote:

Especially since in the guide it states that if a class is changed or removed, you get a full rebuild up to current exp, but this blog entry specifically states you can only rebuild the effected levels, not the whole character (who's concept may have been entirely based on those archetypes).

The section in the Guide that says that is specifically regarding playtest content. None of the removed archetypes have been in playtest for a long time, if they were allowed under playtest rules at all.

Mmh. I see. Well, dang. Guess I should've been paying more attention while reading. My bad.

@ninjaiguana

While I applaud your intent, I can't agree with you on your parsing of the RAW wording. If we take your strict interpretation of the word 'action', then "each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action" would not let me fire the two barrels sequentially as different iterative attacks within my full-round attack action, because these are part of a single action and not separate actions.

I'm still wondering what I'd do if confronted with a full-cheese gunslinger. Until this thread, I'd probably have ruled against reloading one pistol while you had another one dangling from a weapon cord, but after reading Mike's post I'm less inclined to do that. I'd still be within my rights as GM to limit the number of free-action reloads to one barrel per attack. But at this point I'm more inclined to follow my own advice (from a different topic), and just allow everything; it's not all that out-of-balance (except for a brief spike around 7th level), and the financial cost to achieve even this level of effectiveness is pretty high.

Calm down, Keht, he was probably just primed to see jerkiness by somebody earlier in the thread.

This guy said his synthesist wasn't overpowered and that now he would just have make a new character to trivialize all the encounters: causing a problem to demonstrate that he wasn't causing a problem before.

Removed a post. Keep it civil folks.

While I applaud your intent, I can't agree with you on your parsing of the RAW wording. If we take your strict interpretation of the word 'action', then "each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action" would not let me fire the two barrels sequentially as different iterative attacks within my full-round attack action, because these are part of a single action and not separate actions.

I'm still wondering what I'd do if confronted with a full-cheese gunslinger. Until this thread, I'd probably have ruled against reloading one pistol while you had another one dangling from a weapon cord, but after reading Mike's post I'm less inclined to do that. I'd still be within my rights as GM to limit the number of free-action reloads to one barrel per attack. But at this point I'm more inclined to follow my own advice (from a different topic), and just allow everything; it's not all that out-of-balance (except for a brief spike around 7th level), and the financial cost to achieve even this level of effectiveness is pretty high.

Oh, absolutely. My reading means you'd have to take all your attacks with one barrel, reloading that barrel as necessary, and could only fire the second barrel once, to add a bullet to one of your attacks. I was aware of this, and it doesn't change my stance.

(I also subscribe to the TWF interpretation where you have to take your attacks from highest to lowest, alternating main and off-hand, so certain gunslinger builds may be very sad at my table..)

EDIT: I feel I should also point out that these have always been my opnions on the mechanics in question - I'd enforce them whenever they came up, regardless of the situation. The fact that a particular gunslinger build would be detrimentally affected is just a consequence of the rules ambiguity.

Calm down, Keht, he was probably just primed to see jerkiness by somebody earlier in the thread.

This guy said his synthesist wasn't overpowered and that now he would just have make a new character to trivialize all the encounters: causing a problem to demonstrate that he wasn't causing a problem before.

I guess... 400 hundred posts are hard to keep up with :)

I disagree. This may indeed be RAW, depending on your interpretation of the double-barreled pistol wording. I contend that;

'each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action, or both can be shot at once with the same action.'

can mean that on a full attack action, you can fire the second barrel with one of your attacks as you're taking one full attack action, not X attack actions in sequence.

It doesn't say 'you can fire both barrels on every attack you take within a full attack action', after all; you can fire both with the same action. A full attack action is one action. This turns it into Manyshot with a -4 penalty, per pistol.

That's the reading that I intend to stand by, should this ever arise at my table.

All I can say is that is not How Mike Brock was interpreting it when he was doing his Play Test to see if Gunslinger was as nasty as people said it was.

Quick question which may already have been addressed (I apologize if so). I am planning to go to my first PFS game on the 11th of August and want to know if when I create my character I use the new ruleset or the old one. If I am to use the new rules can I play one of the new races or do I need to wait 5 more days and then create a second new character? Thanks in advance.

My reading means you'd have to take all your attacks with one barrel, reloading that barrel as necessary, and could only fire the second barrel once, to add a bullet to one of your attacks.

I trust you would allow me to not reload the first barrel, fire the 2nd barrel, and not penalise me with the additional -4 for inaccuracy.

Quick question which may already have been addressed (I apologize if so). I am planning to go to my first PFS game on the 11th of August and want to know if when I create my character I use the new ruleset or the old one. If I am to use the new rules can I play one of the new races or do I need to wait 5 more days and then create a second new character? Thanks in advance.

Well, since the new guide also allows 1st character retraining, just make your character with the current rules, and then rebuild him as the intended race on the 16th.

Ninjaiguana wrote:

My reading means you'd have to take all your attacks with one barrel, reloading that barrel as necessary, and could only fire the second barrel once, to add a bullet to one of your attacks.

I trust you would allow me to not reload the first barrel, fire the 2nd barrel, and not hit me with the additional -4 for inaccuracy.

You only take the -4 if you're firing both barrels together, that much at least is clear from the text.

Ninjaiguana wrote:

I disagree. This may indeed be RAW, depending on your interpretation of the double-barreled pistol wording. I contend that;

'each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action, or both can be shot at once with the same action.'

can mean that on a full attack action, you can fire the second barrel with one of your attacks as you're taking one full attack action, not X attack actions in sequence.

It doesn't say 'you can fire both barrels on every attack you take within a full attack action', after all; you can fire both with the same action. A full attack action is one action. This turns it into Manyshot with a -4 penalty, per pistol.

That's the reading that I intend to stand by, should this ever arise at my table.

All I can say is that is not How Mike Brock was interpreting it when he was doing his Play Test to see if Gunslinger was as nasty as people said it was.

As for Mike's playtest of the gunslinger, every GM rules on area of ambiguity at the table. And the posts Mike has been making say that he trusts GMs with that responsibility.

Never mind, I found it... Link

-- david

With all the posts on Gunslingers and touch AC, can someone provide a link to the PRD that says guns only need to hit touch AC? I've looked and can not find it. Heck, I can't find the equipment list in the PRD for the UC book.

And no, I do not have (nor want) the UC or UM books or pdfs. My home guys only use core (their choice) except for a Bear Druid Shaman and a Battle Oracle and we have been playing PF since the first alpha rules.

-- david
Papa.DRB

As for Mike's playtest of the gunslinger, every GM rules on area of ambiguity at the table. And the posts Mike has been making say that he trusts GMs with that responsibility.

Just to Clarify, Those statements by Mike do not mean GMs are allowed to Change the rules.

Weather in this case you are, I would say yes since Mike at least sees it differently then you.

Though Mike makes mistakes as well, and I don't know if he has talked to the Developers on his playtest.

Ninjaiguana wrote:

As for Mike's playtest of the gunslinger, every GM rules on area of ambiguity at the table. And the posts Mike has been making say that he trusts GMs with that responsibility.

Just to Clarify, Those statements by Mike do not mean GMs are allowed to Change the rules.

Weather in this case you are, I would say yes since Mike at least sees it differently then you.

Though Mike makes mistakes as well, and I don't know if he has talked to the Developers on his playtest.

I'm not changing the rules. My view on an area of ambiguity may differ from Mike's view, but that doesn't make my view wrong unless and until an official ruling on the matter is released. My stance does not contradict the RAW in any way.

For all I know, I could be doing a great many things differently from Mike. Having never played at his table, I have no idea. I'm also not expected to know how Mike rules on grey areas of the rules unless he's making an official interpretation or clarification in his position as the head of PFS Organised Play.

Having said that, I don't think this line of discussion is going to go anywhere productive. We should probably move on to something else.

With all the posts on Gunslingers and touch AC, can someone provide a link to the PRD that says guns only need to hit touch AC? I've looked and can not find it. Heck, I can't find the equipment list in the PRD for the UC book.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/combat/firearms.html#earl y-firearms

"When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon"

The list of firearms is further down that page.

Papa-DRB wrote:

With all the posts on Gunslingers and touch AC, can someone provide a link to the PRD that says guns only need to hit touch AC? I've looked and can not find it. Heck, I can't find the equipment list in the PRD for the UC book.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/combat/firearms.html#earl y-firearms

"When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon"

The list of firearms is further down that page.

Thanks, I found it just before you posted. I would have thought that their would have been an equipment page, rather than a mastering combat page.

-- david
Papa.DRB

Quick question which may already have been addressed (I apologize if so). I am planning to go to my first PFS game on the 11th of August and want to know if when I create my character I use the new ruleset or the old one. If I am to use the new rules can I play one of the new races or do I need to wait 5 more days and then create a second new character? Thanks in advance.

Hello, and welcome.

Mike has asked that we continue using the 4.1 Guide until August 16th.

Please do not use us gettting everyone a preview copy of the new guide to talk about early, as a way to skirt the rules to create a character with the new races or the like. If this starts happening, I will be less inclined to release the Guide early next year.

So, you'd need a physical boon to play an aasimar, tiefling, or tengu this side of Gen Con.

Well, since the new guide also allows 1st character retraining, just make your character with the current rules, and then rebuild him as the intended race on the 16th.

That's not a bad choice, but be careful. A lot of people have switched from, say, human to tiefling, and forgotten to take away all the bonuses that humans enjoy, like the extra skill rank or feat. If you're going to go this route, I'd recommend reconstructing the PC from scratch when you rebuild.