Let's Be Clear

Ultimate Intrigue wrote:

In Vogue (Ex)...A vigilante must be at least 5th level and have both the double time and social grace social talents to take this talent.

Additional Resources wrote:

Talents: The social and vigilante talents are legal for play except double time. The in vogue social talent doubles the gold earned when using Craft or Profession for a Day Job...

Emphasis mine.

It looks like 'In Vogue' is legal in PFS but has the illegal 'Double Time' as a prerequisite. Am I reading this right? If so, should we just ignore the 'Double Time' as a prerequisite or is there another?

Thanks in advance!

man this would be awesome if you can ignore double time :), just because the social side of vigilante is so limited in PFS anyways.

Either way, the document is now updated as of April 7, 2016.

Great, thank you!

Could we get a definite settlement of what you can stuff in spring-loaded wrist sheathes? Especially with the discussion raging about sharing consumables, it would be nice to get a decision on whether you can actually stuff a scroll of breath of life in there.

I think this one is valuable to rule on because if there's a mismatch between player and GM expectations and we only find out when BoL is needed, it can cause a lot of anguish.

A couple of clarifications that I'd like to see are:

The first is: Under Heroes of the Wild in the additional resources it states this: Traits: all traits on pages 3-7 are legal for play, except fey thoughts.

However if you take Fey Magic (allowed) as a human you also get Fey Thoughts (Not allowed)....you also get low light.

Now as a human taking fey magic, do I now not get fey thoughts but get low light, or neither?

Second, is with Bolt Ace and their ability that allows them to start with any MW Crossbow that can not be of a special material and is only worth 22gp (as per the AR). I've had players ask...is that limited to light/heavy crossbows.. or by any does it mean Hvy Repeating, or Minotaur etc. Just a clarification on that would be nice to stop the debates.

Thanks

Could we get a definite settlement of what you can stuff in spring-loaded wrist sheathes? Especially with the discussion raging about sharing consumables, it would be nice to get a decision on whether you can actually stuff a scroll of breath of life in there.

I think this one is valuable to rule on because if there's a mismatch between player and GM expectations and we only find out when BoL is needed, it can cause a lot of anguish.

I'd prefer a list of what's not allowed, personally. An exclusionary policy gives GMs more flexibility on corner cases and weird items.

A couple of clarifications that I'd like to see are:

The first is: Under Heroes of the Wild in the additional resources it states this: Traits: all traits on pages 3-7 are legal for play, except fey thoughts.

However if you take Fey Magic (allowed) as a human you also get Fey Thoughts (Not allowed)....you also get low light.

Now as a human taking fey magic, do I now not get fey thoughts but get low light, or neither?

It doesn't come up often but I believe the rule is that if an allowed ability grants you an ability that isn't changed in the additional resources you get it. I don't remember what the discussion was in regards to unfortunately but it was definitely something Occult.

There's a thread where it's discussed specifically - you get everything but fey thoughts. Another good one for the document, though. ^_^

I'd prefer a list of what's not allowed, personally. An exclusionary policy gives GMs more flexibility on corner cases and weird items.

I'm with you there as it makes searches easier for what's in or out, along with a change log for modified rules/stuff. Archives of Nethys is handy for that BUT not so up to date... then there's access by chronicle.

There's a thread where it's discussed specifically - you get everything but fey thoughts. Another good one for the document, though. ^_^

Yeah that does because its handled two opposite ways if what I remember from the Nexian Channeler discussion where Third Eye is banned but technically allowed using that archetype.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Could we get a definite settlement of what you can stuff in spring-loaded wrist sheathes? Especially with the discussion raging about sharing consumables, it would be nice to get a decision on whether you can actually stuff a scroll of breath of life in there.

I think this one is valuable to rule on because if there's a mismatch between player and GM expectations and we only find out when BoL is needed, it can cause a lot of anguish.

I'd prefer a list of what's not allowed, personally. An exclusionary policy gives GMs more flexibility on corner cases and weird items.

Then you'd get the druid who'd claim. "Paizo said nothing about NOT allowing me to put my elephant there.!"

Kalindlara wrote:

I'd prefer a list of what's not allowed, personally. An exclusionary policy gives GMs more flexibility on corner cases and weird items.

Then you'd get the druid who'd claim. "Paizo said nothing about NOT allowing me to put my elephant there.!"

why are there footprints in my butter?

Kalindlara wrote:

I'd prefer a list of what's not allowed, personally. An exclusionary policy gives GMs more flexibility on corner cases and weird items.

Then you'd get the druid who'd claim. "Paizo said nothing about NOT allowing me to put my elephant there.!"

The existing limitations on size and weight would prevent that.

Indeed, "one forearm-length item" or "five arrows or crossbow bolts" or "up to 1 pound of ammunition" seems like a fairly clear list to me. A scroll is a forearm-length item. Ten shuriken are one pound of ammunition. Et cetera.

Kalindlara wrote:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Could we get a definite settlement of what you can stuff in spring-loaded wrist sheathes? Especially with the discussion raging about sharing consumables, it would be nice to get a decision on whether you can actually stuff a scroll of breath of life in there.

I think this one is valuable to rule on because if there's a mismatch between player and GM expectations and we only find out when BoL is needed, it can cause a lot of anguish.

I'd prefer a list of what's not allowed, personally. An exclusionary policy gives GMs more flexibility on corner cases and weird items.

Then you'd get the druid who'd claim. "Paizo said nothing about NOT allowing me to put my elephant there.!"

And the GM, presumably, would feel reasonably justified in shutting that down. ^_^

I'd rather see that than a GM saying that, despite an item looking just like an allowed item, it can't be used that way because it's not on the exact list.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Could we get a definite settlement of what you can stuff in spring-loaded wrist sheathes? Especially with the discussion raging about sharing consumables, it would be nice to get a decision on whether you can actually stuff a scroll of breath of life in there.

I think this one is valuable to rule on because if there's a mismatch between player and GM expectations and we only find out when BoL is needed, it can cause a lot of anguish.

I'd prefer a list of what's not allowed, personally. An exclusionary policy gives GMs more flexibility on corner cases and weird items.

Then you'd get the druid who'd claim. "Paizo said nothing about NOT allowing me to put my elephant there.!"

And the GM, presumably, would feel reasonably justified in shutting that down. ^_^

I'd rather see that than a GM saying that, despite an item looking just like an allowed item, it can't be used that way because it's not on the exact list.

Either way is fine with me as long as it gives us an absolutely clear answer on the scroll of breath of life.

Even if only the Scroll of Breath of Life is addressed, that would be fantastic. We're talking about an 1,125 gp consumable that is either near useless at a table where it's not allowed in a spring-loaded wrist sheath, or almost a requirement at a table where it is. Even at the 7-11 tier, where the scroll is most likely, 1,125 gp is not an insignificant amount to spend on something that you might not be allowed to use in any effective way. Counting on being within s 5-foot step when someone dies is just not going to work out often enough to justify the cost of the scroll. This issue has been around for a long time. It's really time for an answer.

scrolls work fine... what's the issue? <grin>

I don't really think there's THAT much table variation on using scrolls in spring loaded wrist sheaths... Sure there are a few vocal naysayers but I think in practice it's allowed. I haven't sat at a table where the GM said no to this practice in 2 years.
I'd ask why not... then make one of several arguments to allow it. Negotiation is just part of the game as everyone has different ideas on what's appropriate.
I'm NOT trying to derail, just discussing what I see and the practicality of your request and how to handle it locally. Better yet, GM for a bit and allow it. That way you can make you opinion known and real in practice.
I'm all in if staff addresses it <thumbs up> no matter which way it goes...

In local games, I haven't run into it for a while. But online, I've had it happen twice in the last couple of months. It was always sorted out before the game, in the form of me emailing to say I was thinking about buying the scroll, but only if it is allowed in the sheath. And both times the GM gave a very reasonable response that they were only comfortable allowing the listed specific items in the description of the wrist sheath. I don't think that is a wrong interpretation under the current rules. It's just different than mine. But that is why I think it is important to clarify the rule. There is legitimate and justified table variation around a rule with large financial and emotional implications.

I'm pretty much on the fence on whether it should be allowed. A GM allowing only the items listed would be playing perfectly by the rules; he's just being cautious.

Now when a player was expecting a scroll to pop out and it doesn't (because he forgot to ask the GM how he handles this before the game), there's a very uncomfortable situation.

Having to negotiate about it in the middle of a presumably tense combat (someone just died after all) is really not good.

I don't think we need to resolve every ambiguity on every "such as" item in the game, but this particular one has a widely used, very high-stakes use case and that's what makes it worth removing table variation.

BTW, if Spellscribed Armor from the Armor Master's Handbook is approved then the 'spring loaded scroll' should become less critical. Just scribe any 'immediate response' spells like Breath of Life on your armor (for twice the normal cost) and they are always available.

Neat. I hadn't read that part of the book yet. Here's hoping, given the very strong ties to the Pathfinder Society in the description, that Spellscribed Armor does, indeed, end up being made legal.

Dayjob checks: Halved or no if you're going slow

Dayjob checks: Halved or no if you're going slow

No.

Slow Advancement: In the slow advancement track, for

every scenario that your Pathfinder successfully completes,
you receive 1/2 the XP, GP, and Prestige Point awards. You
still receive full Day Job awards.

Aegis of Recovery, Talismans, Ioun stones ({maybe flawed} Tourmaline Sphere, cracked Pearly White {regen covers the flawed}).

there's a thread on Items that can save you...

when I get up in level I get the focus for Contingency and load it, a nice option.

The sidebar in Occult Adventures about replacing magic jar with possession might be worth looking at for this document. ^_^

I´m unsure where i stand on possession, especially with some psychic archetypes and abilities. Have to look into that a lot more.

Dayjob checks: Halved or no if you're going slow

Really don't like that idea.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Dayjob checks: Halved or no if you're going slow

Really don't like that idea.

Agreed. Going Slow means you are going to have a higher expenditure of consumables per level. Allowing full dayjob checks can help counteract this.

Did we ever get an explicit ruling on Alchemist adding level to Craft Alchemy for dayjob? I've read arguments back and forth and adhere to the strictest reading myself, but I find it unintuitive to say no. That and it always feels annoying when you need to argue against your own interest when GMs tell you that you're supposed to add it. A clear rulng would help, I think, and either get me more money or make me stop feeling like I'm cheating myself of money, depending how the ruling fell. :)

Gary Bush wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Dayjob checks: Halved or no if you're going slow

Really don't like that idea.

Agreed. Going Slow means you are going to have a higher expenditure of consumables per level. Allowing full dayjob checks can help counteract this.

Thomas quoted the rule. This is not something that is unclear. The rule is very direct. You get full Dayjob awards when going slow track. I don't know if BNW was asking if that should change, or just didn't realize the language was in the guide already. If someone wants to advocate for a change (I'm not sure that's actually the case), I'd suggest a separate thread.

The original version of the jingasa of the fortunate soldier appears in Pathfinder Adventure Path #52: Forest of Spirits. As of now, it's a legal source for the jingasa, much like Fencing Grace remains in un-errataed form in Advanced Class Origins.

While I'd love to see sales of Jade Regent PDFs spike, the team may want to address this. ^_^

They will. They did the same for Rhino Hide Armor when it was different between 2 sources.

I don't know if BNW was asking if that should change, or just didn't realize the language was in the guide already.

Didn't realize it was there already.

Trust me when i'm asking for a rules change I'm not subtle about it :)

The original version of the jingasa of the fortunate soldier appears in Pathfinder Adventure Path #52: Forest of Spirits. As of now, it's a legal source for the jingasa, much like Fencing Grace remains in un-errataed form in Advanced Class Origins.

While I'd love to see sales of Jade Regent PDFs spike, the team may want to address this. ^_^

Pssshhhhht!°

The original version of the jingasa of the fortunate soldier appears in Pathfinder Adventure Path #52: Forest of Spirits. As of now, it's a legal source for the jingasa, much like Fencing Grace remains in un-errataed form in Advanced Class Origins.

While I'd love to see sales of Jade Regent PDFs spike, the team may want to address this. ^_^

Fencing Grace was slaughtered in the Campaign Clarifications document for ACO. So for all intents and purposes the reading in ACO is just like Ultimate Intrigue.

Kalindlara wrote:

The original version of the jingasa of the fortunate soldier appears in Pathfinder Adventure Path #52: Forest of Spirits. As of now, it's a legal source for the jingasa, much like Fencing Grace remains in un-errataed form in Advanced Class Origins.

While I'd love to see sales of Jade Regent PDFs spike, the team may want to address this. ^_^

Fencing Grace was slaughtered in the Campaign Clarifications document for ACO. So for all intents and purposes the reading in ACO is just like Ultimate Intrigue.

Indeed... but they still had to put it in there. If they don't do the same here, it seems that it would continue to function as printed.

claudekennilol wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

The original version of the jingasa of the fortunate soldier appears in Pathfinder Adventure Path #52: Forest of Spirits. As of now, it's a legal source for the jingasa, much like Fencing Grace remains in un-errataed form in Advanced Class Origins.

While I'd love to see sales of Jade Regent PDFs spike, the team may want to address this. ^_^

Fencing Grace was slaughtered in the Campaign Clarifications document for ACO. So for all intents and purposes the reading in ACO is just like Ultimate Intrigue.

Indeed... but they still had to put it in there. If they don't do the same here, it seems that it would continue to function as printed.

I don't understand the point of your post then. Fencing Grace has already been butchered fixed, so why bring it up? And I disagree, they absolutely did not have to put Fencing Grace in the CC doc.

edit: point of your post regarding Fencing Grace that is--as it's already in the doc.

Fencing Grace has already been butchered fixed,.

EEEEPS! Thats not good either!

Fencing grace from ACO wasn't changed. If they had left it legal but not done anything in the CC then it would still have the original wording, even though a newer feat with the same name existed. Only by including it in the CC did it keep the ACO legal, but change the wording to that of the feat with the same name.

claudekennilol wrote:

Fencing Grace has already been butchered fixed,.

EEEEPS! Thats not good either!

Spayed/neutered?

Fencing grace from ACO wasn't changed. If they had left it legal but not done anything in the CC then it would still have the original wording, even though a newer feat with the same name existed. Only by including it in the CC did it keep the ACO legal, but change the wording to that of the feat with the same name.

I'm not arguing that putting it in the CC did what you say--I'm overtly complaining because I think it was an absolutely horrible thing to do. On top of that I have a character that's literally broken because they did not offer the same limited rebuild as when Slashing Grace was errata'd.

I'm not casting a value judgment on whether they should or shouldn't clarify the Jade Regent jingasa. I'm merely noting that, if the policy here is the same as the policy for Fencing Grace, then it would be consistent to address it.

Who knows? Maybe people who can produce a copy of Forest of Spirits get to ride the Fate's Favored train to Lucktown. If Campaign Leadership doesn't address it, I'm perfectly happy to allow the item. ^_^

Who knows? Maybe people who can produce a copy of Forest of Spirits get to ride the Fate's Favored train to Lucktown. If Campaign Leadership doesn't address it, I'm perfectly happy to allow the item. ^_^

Which... would really annoy the people who insist on believing that errata changes are driven by PFS play. :]

I don't think it's really desirable that what is supposed to be the same item has significant functional differences depending on what book you get it from.

For the sake of sanity, a jingasa from one book should do the same as a jingasa from another book.

(This is different from options that were never intended to be the same thing, such as the different dueling weapon properties.)

I don't think it's really desirable that what is supposed to be the same item has significant functional differences depending on what book you get it from.

For the sake of sanity, a jingasa from one book should do the same as a jingasa from another book.

(This is different from options that were never intended to be the same thing, such as the different dueling weapon properties.)

I agree with this. I'm not sure there is an answer that doesn't create hard feelings one way or another. I feel for those who don't want to potentially have to buy new book after new book to play thier character as designed and built. But it is patently unfair to GMs to be aware of two different sets of rules for the same things. And it's unfair to players for a fellow player to specifically have a better version based on book.

And then what happens if a player plays with the nerfed version for a few adventures and decides he wants the more powerful one so buys the other book? How should a GM handle this?

No, in my mind the best and least complicated and confusing option is if an ittem is different accross sources, to decide which single source an item is legal from.

I prefer updating the Campaign Clarifications document so that, if someone IS using the more obscure source, they don't have to buy a new book either.

Other than that, yeah. Consistency is good. ^_^

I prefer updating the Campaign Clarifications document so that, if someone IS using the more obscure source, they don't have to buy a new book either.

Other than that, yeah. Consistency is good. ^_^

This I agree with. Wholeheartedly. (Makes mental note to print out AR and CC right before Origins)

CC is obvious from the recent discussion, but AR escapes me. Accounts receivable? :-)

Additional Resources.

I prefer updating the Campaign Clarifications document so that, if someone IS using the more obscure source, they don't have to buy a new book either.

Other than that, yeah. Consistency is good. ^_^

Yeah, I think that's the best solution given the constraints we have to work with ("we don't errata softcovers").

Pathfinder Player Companion: Animal Archive

*Note: The Animal Magic Item Slots table found on the inside front cover of the book is not legal except under the following conditions. First, an animal companion, familiar, or bonded mount, may choose one slot listed under its body type when taking the Extra Item Slot feat (this feat may be taken multiple times, each time selecting a different available magic item slot based on the creature's anatomy). Second, access to specific magic item slots may be granted at a later date by another legal source.

Archetypes: all archetypes on pages 6–7 and 20–21 are legal; the valet familiar retains the Alertness feat and does not gain Cooperative Crafting, though this still counts as modifying the alertness ability for the purpose of qualifying for archetypes. The Huntmaster may only have one animal companion in his hunting pack; Animals: all animal companions on pages 28–29 are legal. Animals on pages 14–15 are legal for purchase except dinosaurs and megafauna (unless already allowed in this document in Bestiary 1, Bestiary 2, Bestiary 3, or Ultimate Equipment) and dire animals. Additionally, only creatures of the animal type of size Large and smaller may be purchased. Goblin dog is restricted for purchase and only available to goblin PCs. Finally, a PC can only purchase an animal, mount, or similar creature if its Challenge Rating is lower than that character's level; creatures with a Challenge Rating of 1 or lower are exempt from this restriction, as are horses.; Equipment: all equipment on pages 12–13 are legal except barding stitches, fury drops, and poison caps; Familiars: all familiars on pages 10–11 and 30–31 are legal. Approximating familiars is not legal for PFS play; Feats: all feats on pages 18–19 are legal except Familiar Spell; Magic items: all magic items on pages 26–27 are legal except circlet of speaking and familiar metamagic rod; Spells: all spells on pages 24–25 are legal; Tricks: All tricks on pages 8–9 are legal.

My question relates to the two bolded portions, above. Rabbits are listed as a new familiar on pages 30-31, so they're legal for play. However, they're missing from the Animal Magical Item Slots table on the inside front cover. For that matter, Paizo seems to keep forgetting that they ever included rabbits as a familiar, as they're forgotten in later publications that list familiars.

So what item slots can I choose from if I trade out the default Run feat on a rabbit familiar for Extra Item Slot? I'd assume their body type is "Quadraped (claws/paws)", but that's not actually printed on the table, so a confirmation from campaign management would be appreciated.

And while we're on the subject, this FAQ says:

Animal companions are also limited by their individual anatomies. In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, animal companions always have access to barding and neck-slot items so long as they have the anatomy. For example, a horse and pig can always have access to barding and neck-slot items. A snake does not have access to either. However, an item called out to be used by a specific animal is usable by that animal regardless of slot.

Since this is an answer to the question "Can my animal companion or familiar wear or use magic items?", can we assume that this paragraph applies to familiars, too, even though it only actually says animal companions?