Alexander Nudd's page

Sweet. A scenario I actually want to play. (I have too many seekers.) I also find it amusing I know almost everyone in this thread so far.

I really enjoyed the convention, and great work on the end of all the organizers, and GM's. Virtually everyone I talked to agreed that the quality of GM'ing, mustering, and playing this year was higher in years passed, and that is great!

I also felt quite cold in the Sagamore in the morning slots. That is easily remedied though for next year by remembering to pack a hoodie or something.

In regards to the 1 AM end time for events, I felt that it was needed from the point of view of a GM and I imagine from the point of view of the HQ volunteers. A player has the ability to schedule their events themselves, and allow adequate time for them to get whatever it is they need to do done. Tier 1 and 2 volunteers find themselves in the Sagamore for 30-40 hours or so over the course of the convention (and that's just in volunteering!). That's a lot of time, and doesn't allow us much time to do anything else. If the breaks were any shorter than they were, I wouldn't have volunteered to attend the convention as a GM. I felt it was the bare minimum time needed to prepare for the next slot, and get any personal things you needed to get done handled.

In regards to mustering, I think it would have been helpful to stick a large number on each of the iconics around the room. (I assume there wasn't one, but not 100% sure since I didn't actually play any PFS at the convention.) I heard HQ volunteers explain to people a number of times which iconic they needed to go to along with a description of the iconic. This seems VERY confusing, since I wasn't sure exactly what they were talking about on at least one occasion when the Iconic in question was new and I was unfamiliar with their name. From the POV of a new player, not knowing any of these characters, I imagine finding where you are suppose to be was quite arduous.

I also agree with the above posters that the Weston while close, did seem like the least accommodating out of the attached hotels. I spent a little time in each of the others, and they all seemed to have a nicer space. The whole elevator key-card thing was also quite annoying. Especially on the first few days of the convention when many of our key-cards would only allow us to access the floor our room was actually on + 1,2, and 3. Luckily it seemed they had that sorted out after many complaints by Friday afternoon sometime. (My key-card would get me anywhere I wanted to go, but after escorting a venture captain around the building for ten minutes so that we could get to different rooms with our friends/fellow GM's in them, it became clear how much of an issue this was.)

Looking forward to next years convention, and thank you so much guys for organizing an amazing event!

Congratulations! I'm looking forward to playing in, and running the new content you and the team come up with.

Wow, those are some pretty sweet tiefling traits.
Thanks for the post.

Can anyone break down the new Tiefling alternate racial traits? Specifically the trait that only works for good tieflings (assuming that exists) and the one that is like scion of humanity.

I think we are on the same page for current RAW at least right now.
It seems that you can in fact invoke the deciding between a full attack and single attack rule to effectively cancel most "special" full attacks to move after the first attack with the exception of Manyshot since there was a FAQ on the subject.

We are now down to debaiting RAI on if one can get benefits from declaring a full attack action (such as flurry of blows) and abandon the attack to move after receiving said benefits.

It does seem very weird to me that a monk hits more accurately while making a single punch before moving 10 feet (and possibly harder if they have power attack) than after 10 feet since they couldn't move and then start their flurry to abandon it to gain benefits of a higher BAB. This is the only mechanic I can come up with where this happens. (With the exception of Manyshot, which has been FAQ'ed to not work with the deciding rule)

It is also weird that Monk's are the only class in the game that has control over how hard they wish to power attack at any level. For example, an 8th level monk can opt to take either a -2 to hit for +4 damage or a -3 to hit for +6 damage at their leisure when making a single attack BEFORE a move since they can simply use their higher flurry BAB for additional power attack benefits if they wish. After they are move, they can't even try to start a flurry so they are stuck with the lower (and I believe intended) numbers for a single attack. That seems to be totally against the spirit of the rules of the game to me, but at least we are good on the RAW.

Well thanks for finding that FAQ. Now we just need to wonder about the other similar actions, especially Flurry since that it different if you start out as a full attack or not. Good discussion so far.

You do get a bonus from Flurry of blows though on the first attack. You get to treat your BAB as your monk level for the first attack, which means you get extra power attack damage as per the FAQ on the subject. At many monk levels, you aren't actually taking a negative to hit on that first attack but are possibly getting a bonus to damage due to flurry. As a concreate example, a level 8 monk gets to take -3 to hit and +6 damage while flurrying at the exact same modifier for the first attack of +6. If he weren't flurrying this would be lower. How is this drastically different from the benefit gained from many shot? (This is before taking into account other things that give you bonuses while taking a flurry of blows or a full attack.)

I do agree their is an ambiguity here, and as written their should be conformity and it should be addressed. Hence the point of the thread.

Had an issue come up last night, and in many games in the past that needs some clarification.

The basic question is this: How do the rules for deciding between an attack and a full attack on page 187 of the CRB interact with modified full attacks from Flurry of Blows, Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot, Manyshot or other abilities.

I've had many GM's rule that Flurry of Blows, and other related actions once started can not be ended to take a move action.

The relevant text from the CRB is "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending
on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have
not already taken a move action this round. If you’ve
already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action
to move any distance, but you could still use a different
kind of move action."

This clearly implies that when taking a run of the mill full attack that you can move after your first attack if desired and forfeit the rest of your attacks. Flurry/TWF/Rapid Shot and certainly many other abilities say that they can be made as a full attack action. So it seems that this should allow you to move after the first attack of a flurry and other special full attack actions.

The argument is usually that taking any of these special full attack actions can only be used while taking a full attack, and the above text lets you essentially not take a full attack so the flurry and other abiltiies couldn't have been used and thus you can't take the move after they are started. This has to do with the negatives incured and the bonuses in the case of flurry since you use your level as BAB for flurry when determining Power Attack.

This gets further complicated when you look at Manyshot. Which states "When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit."

It seems that if Flurry/Rapid/TWF don't "lock you into" a full attack, then neither does manyshot. Therefore you could shoot both these arrows as your first attack, and then decide to move if you so wished as per the above cited rules about moving after your first attack.
This seems totally against RAI to me, but seems related so I included it.

Alexander Nudd

Credit 150 6-June-2015
Review Game and Special 10: 3-July-2015
Status Live 25 (24? No idea, just noticed)-July-2015
USA - Pennsylvania - Philadelphia

Really wish I waited a day on that special, would have had game 150 on D-Day and review on July 4th. XD

I have personally seen people get kicked off tables for not having sources, so yes that certainly does happen. That being said, I think I've seen it 3 times in 400+ tables of PFS.

I certainly agree that overrun could use some help James and more things are more pressing. I only pointed it out since the design team was actively working with the Wild enchantment this week and it has caused me considering consternation.

It seems we must live in entirely different gaming worlds though. I've had countless GM's agree that Wild Shields don't work as written when I specifically asked them about it. This includes at least ten people with 5 stars, even more VO's and a couple of people with campaign service awards. It's been my experience at something like 400 tables of PFS I've participated in that the vast majority of GM's operate that way, and thus I asked for a clarification so I could enjoy my high level druid a little more with a nifty wild shield. (Although, I guess I'd need to sell it and buy a new one anyway since the current one is a tower shield and I don't want to take the -2 to hit if that applies now even if I took proficiency)

Which I guess raises another question, assuming Wild Shields do work as they should. Would tower shield users take that -2 to hit with a melded Wild Tower Shield?

Yes, I agree Gisher. I am eagerly awaiting an errata on that particular book. It was just an example of clear cut RAI, just like the Wild Shield issue. I hadn't heard that it was coming very soon though, that's great to hear!

There are a lot of abilities that people think clearly should work, but just simply don't as written. It's an unfortunate side effect of our game, especially when the person running any given table isn't afforded the luxury of modifying the rules as it is in an organized play system. Sadly what is obvious to one person isn't to the next guy, so PFS GM's generally take the most literal interpretation.

Another example that is pretty cut and dry is Daring Champion Cavalier, who gets the Precise Strike deed for free but doesn't have a swashbuckler level so that doesn't do anything either. This example can also be easily extended further to the magus Arcane Deed that lets you take Precise Strike but similarly doesn't do anything as written.

Assuming the first works just because that makes sense, extends onto the second example and there have been countless threads arguing if the latter works, all coming to the conclusion but by how it is written it certainly doesn't and no one even knows the intent in that case unlike with these Wild Shields.

If it were in my home game, I unquestionably would interpret wild shields as I believe they were intended. As well as Daring Champion and Arcane Deed for Precise Strike counting your cavalier or magus level respectively as your swashbuckler level for the purposes of Precise Strike damage. PFS isn't my homegame though, so we rely on these Friday FAQ's and new printings to address issues such as these.

I check the Pathfinder Design Team post religiously on Fridays, and have been very happy with the work Mark and anyone else involved has been doing to clear up ambiguities.

Sorry for the thread derailment, I was earnestly trying to get an issue resolved that I figured would be a no brainer "Yes, wild lets shield bonuses apply as well". Back to rejoicing (or grimacing) over changes to Wild Armor that has long been a point of contention!

It is clearly written that Wild gives you the items armor bonus and nothing else (until this FAQ added ACP, Spell Failure, Max Dex and movement speed reduction). Shields don't give an armor bonus, but rather a shield bonus. So currently they don't do anything. Rules as Intended it's quite clear that Wild Shields should give a shield bonus, by RAW, they don't.

Every PFS GM would rule that way, since that's what RAW says.
I bought the shield on my druid, and it's been sitting around useless ever since I realized that Wild wasn't worded properly, thanks to a friend pointing it out.

Shield focus would certainly still work, but those others are weird indeed. I think by RAW they work, but flavor wise they don't make any sense since the shield is melded.

Weapon Finesse probably would take negatives still as well. That being said, I had no idea that clause was even in weapon finesse, but that's fine since my finesse guy that uses shields has a mithral buckler anyway which doesn't have an ACP.

I don't personally know of any armors that work for casters while polymorphed, except for the obvious effects that just give an armor bonus that aren't armor. (Bracers of Armor, Mage Armor, etc.)

I got super excited about this, because I thought you were about to fix Wild Shields, but you didn't.

Those of you that keep talking about Wild Tower Shields need to first realize that by RAW they don't actually do anything currently.

Wild reads "Armor with this special ability usually appears to be made from magically hardened animal pelt. The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen."

The issue with this is that shields don't have armor bonuses, they just have shield bonuses. Any chance we can add into this ruling that Wild lets a shield bonus work as well?

I did do it to my own faeries. It does raise an interesting point, and I do believe this needs a FAQ.

So essentially the question is this:

Is provoking an attack of opportunity from moving into a creatures space and provoking an attack of opportunity from moving through a creatures threatened area the same trigger?

If yes, then either 5 footing into someones space either doesn't provoke since 5 footing never provokes, or does provoke exactly once since the page 195 rule trumps the never clause and 5 footing as a tiny or smaller creature into a creature with reach's square is the only way to provoke with a 5 foot step.

If no, then they are different triggers, and using a 5 foot step to go into a square should provoke once and moving into someones square using a move action should provoke twice, once for moving through a threatened area and again for entering another creatures space.

I think they are different triggers, and that clears up any ambiguity and we go with the perfectly clear second option here.

EDIT: The last line is basically saying what dragonhunterq said right before me.

My understanding of the rule is that the action of provoking from movement, and the action of provoking when moving into a creatures space when you are tiny are two different triggers. Therefore, if a tiny creature took a move action when starting next to someone, and moved through their space to get to somewhere else it would provoke two seperate AoO's from that individual. One for the movement, and one for entering its space.
So the action of 5 foot stepping into a creatures space does not provoke from the 5 foot step, and only provokes from entering a creatures space. Thus resulting on 1 AoO.
I don't have much sway in this argument since I'm the GM that did this to BigNorse, but that was my understanding.

Best to you and your family Mike, and good luck in your future endeavors.

True, was to bogged down in the first limitation that I somehow failed to realize existed until a few minutes ago. The wording of master performer doesn't need an "override" as you put it, that is correct. Thanks for the help guys. Now I am frantically searching all my characters to make sure that I haven't been breaking a rule! (Oracle channeling at above 20th is clear, same with Paladin Lay on of Hands above 20, and alchemist bomb damage above 20. So looks like I am all good!)

I was stating up a bard build, and via Aasimar Alternate Favored Class Bonus and Banner of Ancient Kings had level 34 Inspire Courage at level 20 but then realized that doesn't actually do anything.

Alright.

Just to make sure we're still on the same page, if I took Master Performer as a 20th level Bard I could get +5 to inspire Courage due to specific > general right?

Master Performer "When any of your bardic performance abilities grant your allies a bonus, that bonus is increased by +1."

Thanks for the quick responses.

When an ability references a maximum attainable value, such as the inspire courage ability below, is that always the maximum?

"At 5th level, and every six bard levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +4 at 17th level."

Let's say I was somehow a 23rd level bard for the purposes of inspire courage (Banner of Ancient Kings and/or Aasimar alternate racial). Would my Inspire Courage add +5 due to the +1 per 6 levels past 5 clause or would it still add +4 due to the explicit maximum laid out in the text?

I'm not sure if the listed maximum is intended to be a hard cap regardless of effective level, or to make clear how the pattern progresses.

I imagine if one had an ability that simply added +1 to Inspire Courage (via lets says Master Performer) that it would override this by specific trumps general. Just no idea with the effective level increases cited above.

This is just one of MANY Examples of this maximum bonus language which can easily be invalidated by other features that adjust effective level.

I think that is the one where he made fun of me, maybe I'll go rewatch it and see but I don't recall any specifics in that podcast except for the boon maybe existing. (Not by name, but he was making fun of someone for playing to much PFS and I compared the numbers and it was spot on. I take pride in this if you are reading John. Never can play to much PFS!)

Alright, thanks man. I just found one, and it didn't really shed much light. I've had this conversation quite a few times, with dozens of people that this applies to and no one seems to be really sure.

You're usually pretty knowledge Nefreet, have you seen any "official" posting to that regard. Virtually every other person I talk to about this has a differing opinion, and just trying to clarify. I'll take a consensus though if other people want to chime in :)

I have some question about how this boon is suppose to work.

Question 1: If I recharge replays do they expire at the end of the season I applied the boon in? Therefore if I recharge all 4 of my replays now, do I need to use them by Gencon?

Question 2: Can I fill the boon up but apply it next season? Therefore the games I GM'ed were in Season 6 but I'll be using the replays in season 7?

Question 3: I have 2 of these. If I use one now, and another after Gencon and obtain my 5th star at some point could I in theory replay 11 games next year. 5 for each boon and 1 for my current remaining star? (I probably won't do this, just trying to understand how this thing works.)

From reading the boon I think the replays earned are permanent and can be pooled, but I can only earn 5 replays per year per boon (Max 1 boon application per year.) Just making sure that is correct.

Yeah, I'd be totally down to GM any older specials that are put up. Need to get to the magic number 10.

I thought they weren't releasing the specials until after Gencon? Did they change this or did you get permission somehow? (Sorry I may have also misinterpreted what my VO friends have told me and am just wrong. If that is the case, I would love to know so that I can attempt to get this stuff scheduled for my local conventions if possible.)

Looks like they fixed the issue already, as I suspected above. Cool beans. Thanks for the confirmation balckbloodtroll.

Alright, the bestiary contradicts the core rulebook as pointed out by a friend. On Page 302 it states "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action
(although often a creature must forgo one natural
attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a
claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their
weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks
as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the
attack’s original type."

So apparently the CRB is just wrong presumably and this is correct. If this hasn't been addressed yet, can we get that paragraph changed in further printings?

So I was researching something related to this topic when I stumbled across a rule that doesn't seem to be followed in the bestiary or anywhere else I am aware of. I didn't know it existed, and neither has anyone else I ran it by. I was wondering if I was interpreting this correctly.

The CRB states on page 182 "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. In addition,
all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed
strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your
natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for
determining the penalty to your other attacks.

Does this imply that if I make attacks with a weapon and my natural attacks that the weapon takes penalties for fighting with two weapons? Therefore if I don't have TWF, that is a -4 penalty on my main hand weapon? If my only manufactured weapon is a two-handed weapon, can I even do this? If so, I take it I take just the -4 on the attacks with that weapon and the appropriate modifiers on my natural attacks for them being secondary?

If I am reading this correctly, why do creautres in the bestiary not take these negatives in their stat block? See Babau for example. His attacks are listed as longspear +12/+7 and Bite +7 (Simply taking the -5 for the bite being a secondary natural attack as part of a full attack as normal. Not factoring in this apparent two weapon fighting penalty to his spear.)

Good enough for me Mark, thanks.

I just got my copy of Pathfinder Unchained.
Like many of you I immediately paged down to the summoner class and started looking at it.

Under the Protean subtype, it states that their base form grants the following evolutions: "Base Form: Serpentine (bite, grab [tail slap], tail, tail slap)."

In addition "At 1st level, protean eidolons gain the
resistance (acid) evolution as well as the grab evolution, tied
to an attack type of the summoner’s choice. Whenever the
summoner changes the protean eidolon’s evolutions, he
can also change the attack type for grab."

Now, this would normally imply that the Eidolon has Grab on his tail as part of his base form and grab on another attack form of the player's choice from the protean subtype but as far as I can tell you can't take the grab evolution twice.

So does this mean that Protean subtype is :
A) A special case where you do get the grab evolution twice, once on your tail slap and once wherever you please?

or

B) typoed and you only get the grab evolution once, but it can be placed on whichever natural attack you please?

or

C) fatally flawed since you are stuck with grab on your tail from your base form, and the grab that you are suppose to be able to put on whatever and change never occurs since you can't have grab twice.

Skeld wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

That said, I have another option that is more mathematically elegant than the final solution in the book but was deemed too complex to understand due to involving a two-dimensional table.

If it doesn't require Tensors, then it isn't mathematically complex enough!

(Also, ask me sometime about my Quaternion-based facing mechanics. No more "divide-by-zero" problems at the table!)

-Skeld, patiently awaiting his PDF

Just a two-dimensional matrix look-up. You don't even have to calculate the determinant!

So was your system invertible or no?

Alright. Since the only thing that was swaying me in the direction of Bardic masterpieces not being Bardic performances was a confusing post by James Jacobs, I asked him to clarify his confusing post. Which he did very fast!

Turns out that Bardic Performances are Bardic Masterpieces as I originally thought, thus they wouldn't stack. Thanks for your input guys.

This question was asked in the Ask James Jacobs thread as well, page 1083.

Thanks! You're the best.

Hey James,

I'm having some confusion over the rules and a previous comment you made. I was wondering if you could make things clear for us at home.

Years ago Soporific Lotus wrote:
"Can a bardic masterpiece be used while maintaining a bardic performance such as inspire courage? Masterpieces obviously consume rounds of performance but its not clear to me if they actually count as bardic performances."

This question had the unfortunate problem of having a question followed by a statement to the contrary of the question, namely "do bardic masterpieces count as bardic performances."

You responded with a simple "Yes."

Were you saying that Bardic Masterpieces are not Bardic Performances or that Bardic Masterpieces are bardic performances?

This would clear up a lot of questions for me in a simple sentence.

Right I agree that Precise Strike isn't a very good one to use. I was planning on taking Amplified rage on my Skald and Broken Wing Gambit or outflank on that character or a bard in the works.

Just trying to understand how this whole masterpiece system and specifically this masterpiece works, I think we've cleared this one up and should focus on my other thread regarding masterpieces in general. Most of you have posted there already. Thanks for the assistance, seems this is confusing to a large group of people.

Posted under two differen't aliases by mistake. Sorry about that.

The new Bardic Masterpiece in Melee tactics toolbox specifies when you learn this masterpiece, choose a teamwork feat for which you meet the prerequisites. Once the feat is chosen, it can’t be changed. This
performance grants the chosen feat to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear you.Your allies don’t need to meet the prerequisites of this feat. Abilities that extend the duration of a bardic performance, such as Lingering PerformanceAPG, affectthis masterpiece.

So my understanding of this is that I do not need to have this feat in order to select it, nor do I get the feat unless I am using the masterpiece. Is that correct? Seems sort of odd if so.

Secondly, the special says you can gain this masterpiece multiple times.
Each time you take this masterpiece, it grants a different
teamwork feat.

So does this mean if I take it twice for let's say outflank and precise strike that I can perform either Battle Song of the People's Revolt (Outflank) to grant outflank OR Battle Song of the People's Revolt (Precise Strike) to grant Precise Strike? Or does it mean when I perform Battle Song of the People's Revolt it grants both feats to everyone?

While I'm really excited to have two multitable specials this year (Not to mention the other 2 cool specials) I do have one question regarding future plans. I notice that both of these specials are 1-11, and don't allow for seeker play. Is the exclusion of seekers from multitable specials to be expected in the future? Or are we likely to see another special that incorporates our beloved seekers in season 8 or beyond?

(I realize that I'm in the minority with a large cast of seeker PC's I'm always looking for an excuse to play, but figured I'd ask.)

Also not to derail the thread, but I feel like a broken record repeating this so I might as well stick it where a lot of people will hopefully see it (and Greg in relation to his last post)

Pathfinder Society progresses until level 20 now.
The retirement at 12 clause hasn't been around for years.
The more people that know this the better, since we will have more people for high level games.

I'd just like to see a top 100 list.

I don't care if it's sorted alphabetically so you can't tell what "place" your item was in.

I'm fine with it coming out after the winner of RPG superstar is announced to not detract from anyone.

I don't care if you drop out the last x items by votes and replace them with any top 36 items that weren't top 100 by votes to cover up any judge decisions.

It gives another 64 people recognition for working hard on their items, and that is something that is good.

I know at least half a dozen people whose primary goal for this competition (being their first RPG superstar) was to make top 100.

This seems a little odd that we're ditching something that has historically happened and was publicly popular.

Can we get some bestiary's (or just bestiary 1) added so you know we can summon monsters, use our animal companion special abilities (e.g. pounce), wild shape into things etc. etc.

He certainly will be missed very much. I have his Feymire Crocodile on my desk that I borrowed at the last convention we were at together. Was planning on giving it back to him at Dreamation. :(

Condolences to you guys, and Rick's family. I'm sure he'd appreciate you guys taking his character through the last Part of Eyes of the Ten.

Reminds me of claptrap in borderlands.

Going to enter for once this year. So many ideas! Just going to roll a die to pick one and submit it.

I'm aware that the higher spell level continual flame would generally increase the light level 2 or 1 step from Supernatural darkness by itself depending on how close you were to the source of the continual flame.

I was just attempting to clarify that once Deeper Darkness and Daylight offset each other I'd be increasing the light level 2 or 1 step from regular darkness since that is the "natural" state of the room that is now prevailing.

I find it odd that if that is the case, two daylights wouldn't have a similar effect.

Two independent scenarios are as follows:

A) You have 3 rocks. One has deeper darkness cast on it, one has daylight cast on it, and the third has heightened to 9th level continual flame on it. They are all in the same square in a 100 foot radius room. What happens?

B) You have 3 rocks in a different room. One has deeper darkness cast on it, one has daylight cast on it, and the third has heightened to 9th level daylighton it. They are all in the same square in this second 100 foot radius room. What happens?

I'm under the impression that daylight and deeper darkness effects offset each other and the room would return to its initial dark state. Now since the room is dark and the deeper darkness is temporarily negated, the continual flame would work normally.

In the case of the two daylights, they would both get negated inside the area of deeper darkness.

Therefore Heightened Continual Flame + Daylight > Heightened Daylight + Daylight?

Congrats Billy! Feel free to let me know if you ever need any assistance for conventions.

Was just having a discussion about creatures and hardness yesterday. Thanks for the clarification!