Mathus Mordrinacht

Adam Luchjenbroers's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 36 posts. No reviews. 6 lists. 1 wishlist. 21 Organized Play characters.


Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, Additional Resources seems to say Mutation Warrior is both available and not available for play.

Additional Resources wrote:
Archetypes: all archetypes on pages 75-133 are legal for play, except forgepriest, hex channeler, musketeer, mutation warrior, packmaster, primal companion hunter, primalist, spirit summoner, and steel hound. Hex channeler, mutation warrior, and primal companion hunter are now legal for play. The free crossbow by the bolt ace's crossbow maven ability is not made of any special material and is worth 22 gp if sold.

As far as I can tell, this was re-opened as an option after they were errata'd to change the level at which you get Mutagen from 1st to 3rd - which seems like a sensible change.

Am I correct in interpreting that the post-errata version of Mutagen Warrior is now PFS Legal? The current text seems like a needlessly roundabout way of saying that it is.

Shadow Lodge

rainzax wrote:
what if instead 5-foot-steppin' was a move action? then, the archer at best could get a single shot, and the wizard would have to choose between safety and metamagic/full-round spells?

Alternatively, if five-foot steps bother you that much give everyone Step Up as a free feat instead? It has almost the same affect, unless the caster finds some way to immobilize their opponent / be more mobile than their opponent (feather step would become a bit more useful / interesting).

Shadow Lodge

I should probably clarify my question.

Since Discern Lies is a targeted effect, the caster would know if their target succeeded at their will-save (and the target would know if they successfully resisted).

However, if they attempted to cast discern lies on someone under the influence of Glibness (which is neither a targeted spell or a saving throw, it requires a caster level check to bypass) would they be aware they succeeded or failed at bypassing an effect?

And would the target be aware that Glibness worked or failed?

I haven't been able to find anything either way on caster-level checks (which are usually made to bypass spell-resistance, so in most contexts successful resistance is fairly obvious).

Shadow Lodge

If a given individual has Glibness pre-cast and someone attempts to use Discern Lies on them, do they then know if they pierced some kind of effect (if successful) or are aware that they failed to pierce some effect (if unsuccessful).

Since it's a targeted effect that allows a will save, the caster would know if they passed that save.

PRD wrote:
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

Reference: Magic, Saving Throws

So far, this has been the only relevant information I can find (I haven't even been able to find a reference for whether you'd know if you failed to pierce SR or not), even though this interpretation would nerf the spell quite a bit (they can't tell if you're lying, but they know you've got a spell effect up to help you lie).

As a GM, I'd probably rule it that if they fail to pierce the effect, it feels identical to if you passed your will save. They'd know you resisted, but would not be aware of how you did so.

However, I'm very interested in hearing other interpretations. Maybe someone knows a rules reference I've missed.

Shadow Lodge

I've been working on a new monster concept to throw at a group I run regularly in a home-game and I figured I'd post what I've got so far to try and get some feedback on it.

Some of my regular group do read these forums, everything will be in spoiler tags.

Lesser Suppressor Swarm:

A strange creature from beyond the bounds of known reality, the Suppressor swarm is a single creature that manifests as a cloud of floating cubes. The cubes seem to distort time, space and logic, and merely looking at them can threaten ones sanity.

The creatures appear to be in league with the Hounds of Tindalos, but whether they are allies or kin remains unknown.

Inspiration: A lot of the initial concept borrows from Alastair Reynolds Inhibitors, although I've mixed in a lot of angle related flavour to thematically fit them with the Hounds of Tindalos (angles of time and whatnot).

Lesser Suppressor Swarm CR 9
XP 6400
Suppressor Swarm (Lesser)
LN Tiny Outsider (swarm)
Init +6; Senses blindsight 60ft; Perception +17


AC 23, touch 15, flat-footed 20 (+2 Dex, +2 size, +8 natural, +1 dodge)
hp 114 (12d10+48)
Fort +7, Ref +10, Will +12
Immune Swarm traits; SR 16
Weakness vulnerability to area effects


Speed 30 ft., flight (60 feet, perfect)
Space 2.5 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Special Attacks swarm attack (3d6 + Devouring Angles), Distraction (dc 19),


Str 9, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 15
Base Atk +12; CMB +12; CMD 22 (can't be Bull Rushed, can't be Grappled, can't be Tripped)
Feats Dodge, Hover, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Mobility, Toughness +12
Skills Fly +29, Knowledge (arcana) +13, Knowledge (engineering) +13, Knowledge (planes) +16, Perception +17, Spellcraft +16, Stealth +10, Use Magic Device +17
Languages Aklo, Common, Orvian
SQ Incomprehensible Geometry (DC 18), Solidify Form (at will)

Special Abilities

Devouring Angles (DC 18) (Su) Each time the Suppressor Swarm damages a creature, that creature must make a Will Save or take 1d3 Wisdom damage.
Incomprehensible Geometry (DC 18) (Su) The appearance of the Suppressor Swarm is hard for the brain to comprehend, and can be quite bewildering for onlookers. Every opponent who can see the swarm must make a will save at the beginning their turn or be confused for one round (treat this as a gaze attack)
Solidify Form (At will) (Su) As a full round action, the suppressor swarm may form itself into several stone blocks 10ft high. Each square within the swarm may move up to 5ft as part of this process, however each section must remain adjacent to the others.

While in this form, the Suppressor Swarm has Hardness 8 and the corners formed by it count as valid targets for the teleportation ability of the Hound of Tindalos.
Mobility (Ex) +4 to AC against some attacks of opportunity.

Shadow Lodge

Edgar_Velan wrote:
Remember, nothing says the succubus has to be alive for you to benefit from the bonus. Just call instead of summon and pay the succubus to grant you the gift and perform some second task. Make a plan in advance to have your allies casually surround the succubus, and kill it in a surprise round. Boom, no chance of losing the bonus. If that fails, rinse and repeat with a new succubus.
PRD wrote:
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.

All that will accomplish is to annoy the succubus.

The succubus with a permanent link through which to manipulate you, and a grudge to be paid.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:

I use this explanation:

Your body has a number of magical points, a lot like chakra. Magic items are normally made to make use of these points to allow their magic to flow through you.

To make a magic item that functions without accessing one of these natural points of magical affinity, you have to put a lot more work in (hence the x2 cost).

There's even a magical item that supports this interpretation.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm usually loathe to make "me too" posts, but I also quite like the roles concept. It provides enough guidance to be useful while still allowing room for each character to keep their individuality.

Brilliant idea, guys :).

Shadow Lodge

Hmm, my thoughts would be to use the Average HPs (rounded up) + Caster level, that would make +10 (1d10 = 6, +4 CL) A CL4 false-life item:

2 x 4 x 2,000 = 16,000gp
16,000 / (5/1) = 3,200gp

For +20, I'd probably up the spell to False Life, Greater (2d10 = 11, +9 CL)

4 x 9 x 2,000 = 72,000gp
72,000 / (5/1) = 14,400gp

Shadow Lodge

Well, using the Magic Item Creation table in the PRD / CRB, we can come up with a recommended price. This table is intended as a DM guideline, so the price can be altered if you believe the result to be too cheap or not cheap enough and GMs are free to disallow some items if they believe them to be over-powered or unsuitable for their campaigns.

Presumably, a Ring of False Life would be a use-activated item, likely having a limited number of uses per day. This means we'll apply the following entries from the table:

  • Use-activated or continuous Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp
  • Charges per day Divide by (5 divided by charges per day)

Now, False Life is a Level 2 spell for Wizards or Sorcerers, giving us a Spell Level of 2 and a minimum Caster Level of 3.

2 x 3 x 2,000 = 12,000gp

Let's assume this ring is usable 1 time per day:

12,000 / (5/1) = 2,400gp

Of course, you can vary the number of uses per day or increase the caster level to improve the effects of the spell. Such changes would affect the formulas provided above.

Shadow Lodge

Is there any RAW advice / guidelines published for determining appropriate spell-like abilities for a monster, given its CR / Hit Dice?

I've scanned the Bestiary sections on Monster Creation / Advancement, and I can't find anything that would give any guidance on an appropriate set of spell-like abilities. Is there any published guidelines that cover this?

Shadow Lodge

judas 147 wrote:

Components: V
Casting Time: 1 immediate action
Range: Personal
Target: You

Hmm, if I'm reading that correctly, it can be case as a swift / immediate action (although the spell doesn't specify the trigger condition for taking that immediate action, which is a significant omission).

Presumably, one of the intended uses for this spell would be to cast it in reaction to someone attempting to grapple you (and therefore make it harder for them to catch you / easier for you to escape). Given that textbook Sorcerers and Wizards are pretty weak in grapples, this may give them a fighting chance.

It may also be useful to some gish builds, who can cast it as a swift and still have a move and standard to go pin some poor fool down (+4 from spell, probably +4 from Imp and Greater grapple, decent BAB and strength would make this an effective combination).

Shadow Lodge

Finlanderboy wrote:
Your characters death should be in some way your fault. Killing someone is a descriptive text is just rude. There should be some mistake that the character should be able to eventually deduce that was their mistake. If you are going to finisht he campaign by killing their character is the onyl exception I see to this.

The question here is: Was there any information available leading up to that encounter that might have suggested that casting a few defensive spells might have helped (Death Ward would have allowed you a save, and Spell Resistance would have also have provided you with some protection).

It's a nasty thing to do, but if there were clues (and maybe a few scrolls) left about that would suggest this could happen, then you could have taken some steps to protect yourselves before entering the encounter.

Shadow Lodge

You can most certainly grow claws while Wildshaped, here's the rules text to back it up (found in the Magic section of the Core Rulebook under Polymorph, or found here in the PRD)

PRD wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.

There might be some controversy regarding whether the slam and claw attacks are trying to use the same limb, and whether that prevents them from being used together in the same round. That's a harder one to rule on though. The relevant rules text, while it seems to imply one limb, one attack, doesn't nail it down precisely either:

PRD - Natural Attacks

PRD wrote:

Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.


You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

It's pretty clear on manufactured weapons / natural weapons using the same limb, but not so clear on how two natural weapons ostensibly delivered via the same limb would work.

To me, that seems to fall in the iffy, ask your GM, area. You could argue that you slam with the elbow / forearm and claw with the hand.

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but I was trying to answer the same question myself and figured it was worth sharing the result.

Shadow Lodge

I suspect I've wasted a feat here, but I wanted to get a second opinion before I wrote it off. I picked Furious Focus from memory, without re-reading its limitations, and I suspect it won't actually work for the purpose I'd intended.

For the sake of background, I've got a Barbarian / Druid (Wolf Shaman) who is built around turning into a dire wolf and raging.

RAW, does Furious Focus negate the Power Attack penalty on a Bite attack if that Bite is my only attack.

First, the limitation, from Furious Focus

PRD wrote:
Benefit: When you are wielding a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon with two hands, and using the Power Attack feat, you do not suffer Power Attack's penalty on melee attack rolls on the first attack you make each turn. You still suffer the penalty on any additional attacks, including attacks of opportunity.

However, if the bite is my only natural attack (and, for a dire wolf it is) then this sentence from the Combat section of the CRB applies (found under Combat - Natural Attacks).

PRD wrote:
If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

I see enough here to argue RAI, but RAW, this sentence seems insufficient to allow Furious Focus to work with my Bite attack.

Am I correct, or have I missed something important?

Shadow Lodge

Bloodlust wrote:
Is it true that you can "take 20" for most disable device checks?

You can only take 20 if there is no consequence for failing the check. However, for many traps failing by 5 or more triggers the trap (see: PRD - Disable Device).

Hypothetically, if the lowest you could get would not trip the trap you could legally take twenty. However, since only the DM will know the trap DC that may not work for you in practice.

Shadow Lodge

To answer the OPs question (how did we get from rogues and traps to clerics...?)

Ventnor wrote:
Question is right there in the title. What is it about rogues that makes them the only ones that can disarm magical traps? Why can't a ranger or a bard who have invested some ranks in disable device make a fireball trap safe to pass for the party?

The rules answer is:

PRD - Perception and Disable Device DCs


Magic Trap: The DC for both Perception and Disable Device checks is equal to 25 + the spell level of the highest-level spell used. Only characters with the trapfinding class feature can attempt a Disable Device check involving a magic trap.

This text can also be found in the 'Environment' section of the CRB

PRD - Rogue - Trapfinding

Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.

Note that there are archetypes for other classes that do get trapfinding, so it's not strictly rogue only.

The flavor answer is that, since these traps don't operate in a mechanical fashion, they cannot be disarmed using only mundane mechanical knowledge or skill.

Shadow Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

And you could enchant each one to +5 for 25k, and they would strike as magic +5 weapons. and you would get six attacks per round at lvl12. And every attack would get a free bull rush, without provoking AoOs, as well as doing damage!

I hate it! It means the frankly ridiculous twin heavy shield wielder is a far, far more effective TWFer than a proper weapon wielder!

You realize that the enhancement bonus as a shield doesn't automatically get applied to attack and damage rolls too. They have to pay to have it enchanted separately as a weapon as well (putting the price of a +5 defense and +5 offense shield at 75k).

PRD wrote:

Shields: Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls (see the special ability description).

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

Shadow Lodge

Littlehewy - The rules already cover this quite clearly.

Paladin Class - PRD

Paladin - Spells wrote:

Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.

Shadow Lodge

I did say you could expect table variation, since this trick is so out there that there may not be a definitive RAW answer, and most DMs will find themselves having to improvise on the spot.

Shunted (as per Dimension Door) is another possible ad-hoc ruling you might encounter (thought likely only dealing 1d6 damage in that case, and probably not ending prone).

I'd be curious to see how more experienced DMs would rule on this, if it was thrown at them in the midst of a convention / games day / etc. If you want to know how games you play in would rule on this one, you'd probably need to ask the DM ahead of time.

Shadow Lodge

Finlanderboy wrote:

WHat would the ruling be in a PFS game when the pit expired with monsters in it.

With respect to a pit created using the Create Pit spell, the answer is included in the spell description.

PFD20SRD - Create Pit wrote:
... When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round.

Now, I suppose if the bridge was over the pit, the monsters would be forced against the wall. I'm not sure what the absolute RAW answer here is (or if there is one, expect table variation). I can't find anything on immovable objects meeting unstoppable forces in the magic section. The only precedent I can find is that Magic Circles expire if you try to push them against an entity they prevent from entering.

However, if ruling on it (and without the benefit of a RAW answer) I'd consider the following points in my decision

  • The pit, by its description, has sloped sides (all squares adjacent to it require reflex saves while the pit is active)
  • Since the pit already removes the creature from combat for several rounds, he's likely screwed when re-entering the fray anyway.
  • There is precedent for barrier spells not harming people forced against their barrier.
  • Such a combination, while clever, is repeatable in many circumstances and therefore shouldn't be allowed to become an instant 'kill'.

Which would lead to me ruling that
  • The pit is unable to completely close while the creature is trapped within it.
  • The creature would be able to crawl out (taking penalties for squeezing and any other applicable disadvantages) as a full round action. He would finish this action prone, adjacent to the pit.

This still provides a nice advantage to using this trick, since it puts whoever comes out of the pit at a sizable disadvantage. I'll FAQ this one though, as I'm interested to hear if there is an official answer.

Shadow Lodge

Skylancer4 wrote:

Did you click the FAQ for the Adamantine Plate/Gauntlets thread which (I'm guessing), prompted this question? Pretty much the same questions have been raised and points of view on them posted.

EDIT: link

I'm no expert, but I'm inclined to suspect this thread isn't intended seriously.....

EDIT: Just saw the next post. Not sure if this is brilliant satire or I've just misunderstood the first post.

Shadow Lodge

Rycaut wrote:

I'm really bored with wielding a scimitar - it seems a lot of builds end up using them for the Dervish Dance feat.

Are there some viable (for PFS play) options to the scimitar for a melee focused magus? I'm planning on building a Tiefling magus (have the racial boon) and was probably going to stay as the standard tiefling (so +2 Dex and Int -2 Cha though I'm open to suggestions for of racial heritages that would work well). I am also thinking about some levels of Lore Warden for the many bonus feats and the melee focus (I want to be heavily melee based with spells used to augment my melee effectiveness)

I've only just started looking into this one, but the new Karpenia Dancer archetype (Varisia splat-book) provides an interesting alternative option.

You sacrifice some of the spell-casting ability, but there is some interesting possibilities with the bladed scarf (such as a class ability allowing it to be used for the Steal combat maneuver, and a Magus Arcana to give it 10ft reach..... :)

I've only just started to look at making one for PFS myself....

Shadow Lodge

Lastoth wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I understand your pain. The problem, the 800lb gorilla in the room, is that Paizo made a feat that's simply too good. That made one of the most valuable attributes in the game, even more so.

I disagree, Dervish dance specifically says one handed and the other hand has to be free, it's excellently balanced but it should be for any one handed finessable weapon. That character won't be touching a TWF or 2H fighter IMO.

Agile enchantment is worse, IMO, because that does allow you to begin to really compare to the above fighter mentioned.

Actually, I think making it Scimitar only was quite an effective balance choice - why?

Because it's not a light or finessable weapon. That means you can't use it with Piranha Strike and, if you want the option of sacrificing to-hit for damage have to use Power Attack and therefore cannot completely dump Strength.

For a feat that would otherwise make Strength almost obsolete (only relevant for encumbrance purposes, and that can be negated using items as well), I think that's actually quite a clever little trick.

Shadow Lodge

baalbamoth wrote:
but you could buy two tenticles and then both would have hands...

Actually, you can't. Because unless it explicitly says otherwise you can only take a discovery ONCE

PRD wrote:
Discovery (Su): At 2nd level, and then again every 2 levels thereafter (up to 18th level), an alchemist makes an incredible alchemical discovery. Unless otherwise noted, an alchemist cannot select an individual discovery more than once.

Shadow Lodge

@Gonn - Because with this shirt, your full plate wearing paladin can reach the BBEG and full-attack on the first round of combat.

Barbarians need to reach level 10 before they get a rage power that can do that (with two pre-reqs)

Shadow Lodge

NullVOID wrote:

I dont understand what you mean by stacking.

So if you have an 18str(+4)then also havea belt of strength(+2)

Your strength total is +5.. +5 is doubled to +10 using overhand chop

Ok, what he means is this. Say you have the following:

  • A Strength Score of 18 (+4)
  • A Belt Of Strength, granting you a +4 Enhancement bonus to Strength
  • An Ioun Stone of Strength (+2), granting you a +2 Enhancement bonus to Strength

Your final Strength score would be 22, not 24, as bonuses of the same type do not stack with one another (however, if you were enlarged and received a +2 Size bonus to Strength, your strength would become 24). For references, see PRD - Basics and D20PFSRD - Common Terms - Bonus

Similarly - your normal two-handed damage bonus is a Strength bonus of 1.5 times your Strength. With Overhand Chop you gain a Strength bonus of double your strength.

That particular ability could certainly benefit from a sentence or two to clarify this though.

Honestly, you're expecting a bit much from 3rd level ability that replaces Armor Training 1

Shadow Lodge

That actually sounds like a buff, unless you're multiplying the dice for normal attacks (which is incorrect anyway - it's always your Strength bonus that's multiplied).

Let's assume the following:

  • That you have 18 strength (+4)
  • That you are Power-Attacking and your Power Attack is -1/+2.
  • That your weapon of choice is a Greatsword

Without overhand chop -
2d6 + (4 * 1.5) + (2 * 1.5) = 2d6 + 9

With Overhand Chop (adding to Strength only):
2d6 + (4 * 2) + (2 * 1.5) = 2d6 + 11

Now, if you multiplied both the overhand chop and power attack (which would be nice, but is unfortunately incorrect):
2d6 + (4 * 2) + (2 * 2) = 2d6 + 12

Shadow Lodge

Wild Shape prevents you from speaking in animal / beast form, as the animal itself lacks the vocal chords to speak.

Wild Shape wrote:

A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.)

However, how does this work if, for example - I turn into a Worg. Worgs are magical beasts that know Common and Goblin and possess the capacity to speak them. I am eligible to take the form of a Magical Beast once I reach Druid level 8 (or Level 6 Wolf Shaman).

Does the restriction against speaking still apply even though the base form is capable of proper speech? (I'm interested in a RAW answer here, as this affects a PFS character I'm currently leveling).

Shadow Lodge

There is one small error that I noticed in the PDF edition:

The Beasts of Bygone Days has the map labeled as being part of the Temples map-pack, however the mushroom cavern is actually a part of the Caverns pack

Shadow Lodge

I'd just like to add another post of support, I had an awesome time at Paizocon Oz.

It was well organised, thanks for all the effort that went into making it happen.

Shadow Lodge

Shifty wrote:

On a side note, I got asked by a local council if I could cobble enough gamers together to have a games day in their community spaces on some sort of regular basis... simply put there's a lot of people with room to let crying out for people to occupy the space. I was tossing up pitching an offer to a FLGS to sponsor the space and maybe have a 'bookstand' or similar, but then there's no games store within a bajillion miles of Sydneys North Shore.

Would you as a Gamer be happy to pay a couple of dollars to use a nice airconditioned conference style room with WiFi thrown in and close to all amenities and a great coffee shop next door, loads of free parking and ready public transport access?

I'm certainly interested to hear more about this. I mostly play but have been considering trying my hand at GMing as well.

Shadow Lodge

Ah, that explains some of the confusion.

If it helps any, the certs in question are from early October 2010 (the games were played at Sydcon 2010).

Shadow Lodge

In the process of checking my Certs, I've discovered two that were not entered / recorded. Both of these were scenarios I had previously played on another character.

The replay rules, as explained at the event were that I could play, provided my character had a different faction (he did) but that if the DM felt I had made use of prior knowledge or ruined the scenario for others he could deny me the cert.

From reading the stickies, it sounds like that's not how the replay rules actually work (you can replay if it is necessary to create a legal table, but do not get credit).

I've since played a few other scenarios on that character. I've checked and I can simply deduct the XP / gold / PA without any of them going into negatives.

Is this the correct way to address the situation?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I've been checking the paper certs I've got from conventions against the sessions recorded against my characters and found a few minor issues.

How important is it that I keep the two consistent? - from checking it looks like two of the games for my cleric and one on my rogue don't appear to have been recorded.

If it is important, what's the correct way to go about getting it addressed?

Shadow Lodge

I was issued with a PFS number about a year ago (Eyecon 2010), but never got around to registering the number / my characters on this site.

I've decided to stop being slack and actually register them (they've been in quite a few scenarios since - I have all the chronicle sheets in a binder).

Is there a way for me to recover the confirmation code / otherwise register this number?