Valeros

Amiros Valeri's page

Organized Play Member. 54 posts (120 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 34 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Jacobs statement that cantrips weren't spells were overruled (giving magi all day flurry with arcane mark()

Is the James Jacob statement you are referring to the one that stated you can not select cantrips/orisons/knacks when a trait/feat tells you to 'choose a spell'?

Can you provide a link to it and a link to where it was overruled?


Valandil Ancalime wrote:
Amiros Valeri, have you ever had a DM rule against this?

Yes, I when I saw him yesterday he told me he would rule against it because of the following:

In one of the online PFS games he played in another rule provided a link to where the DEVs stated that when a trait or feat tells you to choose a spell, that you are not allowed to choose a cantrip/orison/knack. He was not running the game and the rule did not affect his character so he did not click on the link. As there was no further discussion it seems that GM agreed with the official clarification provided by the player's link.

I have asked if anyone knows where the clarifying rule is regarding how such traits/feats interact with being able to choose level 0 spells. No helpful posts regarding that as of yet.

I did bring up that two feats (Expanded Arcana and Extra Cantrips or Orisons) does make it seem like the DEV's intent is that you can not pick cantrips/orisons with Expanded Arcana, since if you can Extra Cantrips or Orisons was a redundant feat when the book it is in (UM) was published, as at that time there was no classes that gained only cantrips/orisons.

The above observation leads credence to the possibility that there is official clarification stating you cannot select a cantrip/orison/knack when a trait or feat states to 'choose a spell'.


Valandil Ancalime wrote:
Amiros Valeri, have you ever had a DM rule against this?

I have played the character once (without the trait). In PFS you have before you play as a level 2 PC to retrain your character as you like (within the legal options allowed in PFS). I will be playing the character as a level 2 PC soon. As the trait is not specifically clear on if you can use it with a level 0 spell to gain the benefit of the -1 to the total modified spell leve (due to whether or not you are allowed to treat its actual level as being lower than 0 or not, since you add the spell level modifiers of metamagic feats to the level of the spell they are being applied to). I read the trait, saw that it could use some clarification regarding how it interacts with 0 level spells. After my 4 hours of researching before posting revealed that aspect of the trait was never addressed before I decided to post my question (for the benefit of everyone - since it would remove the possibility of table variance in organized play if this aspect of the trait is officially clarified for us.

What my search did reveal is the reason they put in the FAQ about the trait not being able to make the modified spell level of the spell lower than its original level. It was because of the broken aspect of the original wording of the spell (which did not include the prerequisite of the metamagic feats needing to add at least +1 to the spell's level), due to adding +0 spell level metamagic feats (like merciful) as well as combining the trait with wayang spell hunter. Before the FAQ entry regarding that aspect of the trait, the RAW made it so you could have an at-will merciful magic missile (pretty damn powerful for a 0 level spell).

There has never been any official clarification to how the trait interacts with 0 level spells. My thread has revealed that there are people on each of the three positions: 1) you can use it with 0 level spells; 2) you can not use it with 0 level spells and 3) it is dependent on whether when you treat the spell level of a the spell as one lower, does it have a minimum spell level of 0 or not.


Mystic "X" wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Mystic "X" wrote:
It's true that the spell level is never actually -1, but during the process, the spell level is treated as -1, which rewords the question to "can a spell level be treated as a number not between 0 and 9?".

It's the "during the process" part that I think most of us are having an issue with. You are presuming that the effects of the Trait and the Metamagic Feat are applied to the spell in some sequence. I see them taking effect simultaneously. So for a Quickened Ray of Frost using Magical Knack the original level of 0 instantly become a level 3 spell without ever taking on any other values. So at no point is the spell either level -1 or level 4.

I am curious how you would see things working on the other end of that spectrum.

Can a 20th level Wizard use Magical Lineage to cast a Quickened 6th level spell?

Quicken Spell would normally increase the spell level to 10 which is outside the bounds that are allowed, but Magical Lineage tells us that when we perform the final calculation we should treat the actual spell level as one lower. This would make the final adjusted level be 9. For me there is no problem with this situation since the spell never has a level of 5 or 10. The Trait and the Feat instantly change the spell from level 6 to level 9, both of which are allowed levels.

But using your reasoning, the spell can or cannot be cast depending on the order of operations that you apply.

(1) If you apply the Metamagic feat first, then the spell became 10th level "during the process" and therefore the Wizard can't cast the spell.

(2) If you apply the Trait first, then the spell becomes 5th level, and the Feat raises it to 9th level. There are no violations "during the process" and the Wizard can cast the spell.

How do you decide whether the Wizard can cast the spell or not?

I would say number 2, for the same reasons. Magical Lineage says to treat it (which to me implies the actual level of the spell,...

Number 2, because you add the spell level adjustments of the metamagic feats to the level of the spell being modified. Since the trait tells you that you treat the actual level of the (unmodified) spell as being 1 lower, that means it is currently a level 5 spell before you apply the spell level adjustment of any meta magic feats applied to the spell.

You could choose fireball (lv 3 spell), to gain a quickened maximized fireball with the trait using a level 9 spell slot. That is a pretty solid choice for a blaster caster.


A very good reason for official clarification is it prevents future table variance (which can become important regarding a PC in organized play).

Therefore, wanting an official clarification regarding if there is a floor (level 0) or not is reasonable.


doc roc wrote:
I always understood no.... not doable.

Thank you, doc.

It has seemed that the majority of the posters on here thought I was alone.

Could you please be kind enough to explain why you always understood that it is not legally allowed to select a level 0 spell with the trait?

Note (to nearly everyone else): I am not pro-No regarding this. My intention is for us as a community to get an actual clarification regarding how the trait interacts with level 0 spells.

I personally want it to be 'yes'. It is because the RAW are technically ambiguous (yes, they are...) regarding the wording of the trait. See my above two posts if you are still in doubt about this.


Because the last paragraph of my last post could have been what the DEV decided to print (which would give the same end effect of how (nearly) everyone treats magical lineage as any regarding selecting a level 0 spell with magical lineage, the question is why did the DEVs decide to go with the other version instead?

The possible correct answers are:

They chose the wording they did because they specifically do not want a level 0 to be a valid (effective) choice for the spell chosen.

They were unaware there is a better way to word the trait to prevent confusion and their intent that a level 0 spell can be (effectively) chosen for the spell chosen. It is because of their choice of wording, that makes the question of 'may you legally treat the level of a spell as being lower than the lowest-level spells in the game?' be a valid question.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

A more concise question for FAQ eligibility:

For the magical lineage trait, in which it states to treat the actual level of the spell as being 1 lower; is level 0 lowest you can make a spell become before adding the modifiers for the metamagic feats applied to the spell?


graystone wrote:
Amiros Valeri wrote:
My question is: can you use magical lineage with a level 0 spell?

yes. FAQ needed? no.

Why? Metamagic at work: end level = [starting level + metamagic level]. Altering part of the equation doesn't alter the end result. [[starting level 0 -1] + metamagic level(min 1)] ends up with a valid result every time. The OP's mistake is focusing on one part and not looking at the formula as a whole. It's a -1 spell ONLY for "the spell’s final adjusted level", so it need not be a valid option outside of the equation.

There was no mistake on my part. It is a valid query. Since you treat the actual spell's level as one less, the question boils down to is: did the DEVs intend for it to be legal to select a 0 level spell with the trait or not? The consensus of people who have posted seem to be of the opinion that is the RAI. Many things that reduce an effective number in PF also includes "to a minimum of 0". It is not unreasonable to ask if the DEV's intention with the trait includes the option of selecting a level 0 spell for the chosen spell.

Attempting to end this...maybe someday we will get official clarification...


Thanks, Nixitur.

Would you agree if they swapped out the word 'actual' with 'modified' in the sentence it would be better (and it would make it perfectly clear if their RAI includes being able to use the trait with level 0 spells.

Thanks for the input, everyone. Have a great day.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

What combination of level 0 spell, magical lineage, and metamagic would have a -1 level spell exist even briefly?

The trait says "when you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell" so metamagic has already increased the level of the spell as a precondition to Magical lineage doing anything.

Step 1: Note the level of the spell, call it n
Step 2: Note the level the metamagic adds, call it m.
Step 3: If m>0 reduce m+n by 1.

Kindly do not quote only part of the sentence from the trait (which would make your post seem correct, when it is not).

Again, unmodified sentence from the trait:

"When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level."

Yes, you have to add at least one metamagic feat that adds at least 1 level. When you do so, you treat the actual level [of the unmodified spell] as 1 lower BEFORE you add the modifiers from the metamagic feats.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Is it legal for a spell to have a virtual spell level of negative one (-1st)?

The official answer to the above will determine whether or not a level 0 spell can be legally chosen as the spell chosen with the magical lineage trait.

This thread is not asking about lowering the total modified spell level below the level of the unmodified spell (it cannot be lowered below - this has clearly been answered in the FAQ). My question has never been given an official answer.

What my search has revealed is many misread/overlook the wording of the magical lineage trait, and interpret it as reading you lower the modified spell level by 1, when the actual wording of the trait clearly states you treat the spell's actual level as 1 lower (before applying the spell level adjustments for the metamagic feats).

I asked people to FAQ it in the general rules forum, to no avail.

I would like an official ruling instead of us having another 5+ years of player debate (which is technically a debate whether or not a spell can have a virtual level of negative 1) regarding if you can choose a 0 level spell with the magical lineage trait.

A link to the rules forum thread is http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ufwm?Magical-Lineage-and-picking-a-level-0-spe ll


Okay, a better way to make it clear why an official response is needed....

Is it legal for a spell to have a virtual spell level of negative one (-1st)?

The official answer to the above will determine whether or not a level 0 spell can be legally chosen as the spell chosen with the magical lineage trait.


Ferious Thune wrote:

There is an FAQ on part of this. As James mentions, you can't lower a spell's level lower than its original level.

LINK

FAQ wrote:

Magical Lineage (trait): Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?

No. For example, it won't allow you to alter a wizard's fireball into 2nd-level spell.

You can't end up with a level -1 spell, because you can't reduce the level below that of the original spell, which in this case is 0.

Nothing explicitly says you can use it on a 0-level spell, but there's no reason to think it functions differently on a 0 level spell than on any other spell. Pizza Lord provided a good explanation of how it would work.

The FAQ entry does not answer my query. I stated in my original post that this thread is NOT about making the modified level of the spell lower than spell level of the chosen spell.

Pizza Lord's explanation is not good, because it does not answer the question this thread is about (and why we need an official ruling): is having a virtual spell level of -1 legal? If it is then you can choose a level 0 spell with magical lineage. If is not legal, then you cannot choose a level 0 spell with magical lineage.


For the people who posted since my last post:

The language of the trait specifically states "When you apply metamagic feats to THIS SPELL, treat ITS ACTUAL level as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level."

It does NOT say to reduce the modified spell level by 1 level.

So my question/query stands. Did the DEVs use the language they did because they intended for the trait not to be able to be combined with level 0 spells OR was their rewording of the trait that prevents the munchkin factor of using only +0 spell level metamagic feats from making lower-level spells (like at-will merciful magic missiles).

Lady-J: Please keep the posts in line with the topic of the tread. The topic of the thread is not what people think is the best spell to combine with the trait. Breath of Life is a great one if someone does not mind waiting several levels to get it (if they are starting at a low level). Breath of Life is not better for someone who wants to give their party a better chance at surviving to reach higher level. Guidance used on saving throws can be a major game changer if that extra 1 prevented failing certain saves (poison, petrification, etc.).

Pizza Lord: You are misreading the trait. It specifically states you treat the actual level of the (UNMODIFIED) spell as 1 lower. So my question/query stands. To give official clarification to the trait they need to tell us if they allow level -1 spells (virtual as it might be) or not. Since THE lowest level spells in the game are level 0 spells, the trait could correctly read as not being able to be applied to cantrips/orisons/knacks because there are no such things as level -1 spells.

In other instances when you reduce a number you cannot reduce it below 0. A good example of this is the fighter's armor training class feature, which reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0). If the DEVs' RAI was the same for magical lineage then level 0 spells would definitely not be allowed to be selected with the trait.

SheepishEidolon: You can NOT apply only +0 spell level modified metamagic feats to the spell. This is clearly pointed out in the write-up of the trait. "When you apply metamagic feats to this spell THAT ADD AT LEAST 1 LEVEL to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level." So as it currently stands, you can not make an at-will merciful cantrip regardless of the DEVs' stance regarding if you can select a cantrip.

The (currently illegal) merciful acid splash does bring up another point.

As currently worded, you cannot apply only metamagic feats that do not increase the spell level of your chosen spell, IF it/they are the only metamagic feats to make a lower-level spell.

Note: you can make any damage-dealing cantrip/orison/knack a merciful spell if you have the metamagic feat. You do not need the magical lineage trait to do so. You do not gain any benefit from the trait if you only apply +0 spell level metamagic feats to your chosen spell.

IF the DEVs' intentions was to allow the trait to be used with any spell (including level 0 spells), the best way to word the trait is "The total modified spell level of the chosen spell is 1 less than normal. This trait cannot make the spell's total modified spell level less than the actual unmodified level of the spell."

The wording above would give clear definite answers to all the following (as of yet unofficially clarified rulings):

It would make it clear (without question/debate) that you can choose a level 0 spell for your chosen spell. As it currently stands it is not clearly defined because their are two camps of people (which neither side has a DEV who can give an official ruling) whether or not a level 0 spell can legally be chosen as the spell with magical lineage. If the DEVs' RAI is that the trait can be used with level 0 spells, the above wording would make it RAW.

It would make it it impossible to make the total adjusted spell level lower than the original spell. This is already included in the current wording. It is whether or not the DEV's intent was to include or not include level 0 spells as eligible spells to be chosen with the trait that the rewording would make it clearly evident whether you can choose a level 0 spell or not (as there would no longer be a debate by players who do not have the authority to make an official ruling regarding if you can or can not choose a level 0 spell due to the spell becoming a -1 spell to make use of the trait).

The reason for an official ruling is due to if the DEV allow a virtual -1 spell or not.

If they rule NO, then as currently worded you cannot choose a cantrip/orison/knack (as many people are currently under the impression you can - and many of the posts have revealed they have misread the trait as reading 'lowering the total modified level by 1' instead of what it actually states 'treat the spell's actual level as 1 lower'.

If they rule YES, then the answer/topic will no longer be a 5+ year long debate between the two camps of players. The camp that think you can choose the camp are of the opinion that a spell can have a virtual level of -1 (though some/many of them are probably unaware that their stance of allowing the trait to be applied to level 0 spells means they are saying a virtual spell level of -1 is legal. The other camp are the people who believe that you can not make a spell's level lower than 0 (including virtual spell level).

Please flag this thread for the FAQ so we can finally get an official ruling instead of adding more years to the unofficial debate of players who knowingly or not are debating over the legality of a spell being able to have a virtual spell level of -1.


> Nicholas: It is for PFS that prompted me searching for an official ruling regarding it.

>Gisher: As a mathematician, I have no problem with the virtual aspect. The reason for my query is because technically the lowest level spell in the game are level 0 spells, which is why I want an official response to the question as the DEVs stance could be either way (Schrodinger's Cat) until they give an official stance. After reading and seeing the hundreds of posts regarding how the trait interacts with spells and seeing that only the aspect of the cheese factor of making higher-level spells into 'cantrips' was clearly responded to, but the issue if you could apply the trait to a 0-level spell was not.

>Lady-J: I want to take it with the guidance orison. My character is a healer (primarily via channel energy) and combining the trait with guidance would allow me to stay in a central location without needing to move around (and provoking attacks of opportunity by moving) to cast guidance on my allies while not healing them with my channel ability. The choice of spell for magical lineage is up to each individual player and could be different for different characters of the same player.


If the DEVs' RAI is that it can be used with a level 0 spell, then I suggest the following wording for the trait.

"Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat the spell's modified spell level (after applying all metamagic feats' level adjustments) as 1 less."


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Many posts and comments on the forum boards regarding magical lineage. Most of them regarding the possibility of making a level 1 spell into an at-will spell. This is not what this thread is about.

Spent the last three hours looking for the answer on here. It appears there was never an official answer given.

My question is: can you use magical lineage with a level 0 spell?

Two or three posters did point out that by the wording of the trait you can not use the trait with a level 0 spell.

"Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level."

The wording prevents the merciful spell metamagic feat to be used (as it does not meet the prerequisite of being a metamagic feat that adds at least 1 level to the spell).

The wording would make the level of a cantrip/orison/knack be one less than lv 0. 1 lower than 0 is -1. There are a few ways this can be interpreted. One is that the -1 is only there for the calculation of the final adjusted level of the metamagic'd spell and thus you can legally choose a level 0 spell for magical lineage. Another way is that the lowest spell level is 0, which prevents a cantrip/orison/knack from being a legal option to choose for the magical lineage trait. The third way is to view it that the DEVs' RAI is that you can choose a level 0 spell with the magical lineage trait.

One of the posts some people linked/posted by one of the DEVs included the DEV say there were going to fix the wording. They fixed the wording to prevent the cheese of adding a +0 spell level metamagic feat to create a level 1 at-will spell.

From what I have gathered there has not been an official ruling/FAQ regarding whether or not it is legal to choose a level 0 spell for the trait. Based on the posts regarding the trait, most people believe the RAI is that you can choose a level 0 spell (though by RAW you cannot).

Please FAQ flag this post so we can get an official ruling regarding this.


Are there been any official listings of appropriate gifts, insults and romance scores for the iconics? I want to incorporate a few iconics into the APs I run and would prefer to use officially released listings if they exist.


Thank you, Michael. The rules as written would make it seem that might be the answer. It was the rules as intended that made me want confirmation either way, since the premise for the Core campaign is to use Core rules only.


I have been reading through PFS Core thread posts for the past hour or two and have had no luck thus far finding any posts regarding what I want to know.

For APs and modules that allow campaign mode: can the campaign mode credit be applied to PFS Core characters, or is campaign mode credit restricted to only being applied towards PFS standard PCs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

They AREN"T hard coded.

"Often"

"Average"

"Typical"

Just like in real life where every ethnicity has variances the same is true in Pathfinder, you're not going to get any exact measurements on differing ethnicities any more than you're going to get which one usually has a +2 to Strength and which one has a +2 to Intelligence.

Drop it.

Commanding someone to do something is not good etiquette. Some could view that as a form of harassing (as you are attempting to get someone to do something simply by 'demanding' they do so). You have no authority over me, just as I do not have any over you.

I asked a question, then presented my side of the debate and nearly everyone that posted did so in a respectable way, regardless of which side they favor.

Thank you to everyone who did contribute to the topic in a respectful way.


Protoman wrote:

Folks of various ethnicities like getting some representation in the Golarion universe, I know I do. Sure it's an in-game ethnicity, but I get to play a character of ethnic background that resembles what I get to envision is a heroic character that goes on adventures, instead of what others have defined as an acceptable list of appearances.

What I don't need is a table telling me of what upper limit or lower limit my human race character should have on height/weight when compared to a different ethnicity. I'm gonna decide that for myself and I'd find any such table distasteful. It's one thing for different fantasy races...

To clarify I am not asking for a table that gives different minimum and maximum heights than the ones from Table 7-3 (with the exemption of Bekyar who are given a height that is not within that range). I am referring that a table that weights the random roll to make it so the average result falls in the height (height range) that the various physical descriptions of the Golarion human ethnicities give us about them.

You state that you find any such table distasteful (because it would limit what the minimum, maximum and average heights for the ethnicity is). Yet, the physical descriptions of the ethnicities that already officially exist dictate some aspects of their height compared to the rest of Golarion humanity. Based on your comment some people might find those write-ups distasteful. If that is the case, then I will agree that having an official table might not be a good thing overall. It also brings up one of the things I pointed out earlier, that if that is the case why have latter published Pathfinder books continued to include those aspects in the physical descriptions. The reason for those descriptions is so we can better envision the world of Golarion - not to offend anyone in the real world.

By the write-ups of Tians the tallest a male can attain is 5'6". That has the same potential of offending someone as a table that generates a range for Tien males that makes 5'6" the highest they can roll.

The way I personally prefer is a weighted table that allows any ethnicity to generate a height that is the same for all ethnicities but makes it so the average height rolled for each ethnicity falls within (and lines up with) the physical descriptions that have been given to us for each of the ethnicities.

For players who would like a table that incorporates the physical descriptions from the ethnicity write-ups, below is an example of how to use Table 7-3 to do so.

For example, using Table 7-3 makes 28% of human males 6' or taller.

If you roll 3d10 and keep the highest, that would make 53% of human males 6' or taller. roll 4, keep 2 would make 70% of males at least 6' tall. It does not prevent the possibility of rolling the minimum height for an Ulfen character, but does weight the random roll to better line up with the height for Ulfen humans.

Want to also simulate the exceedingly tall Bekyars? If you are rolling more than 2d10, you may add (for ethnicities that have taller average heights) or subtract (for ethnicities that have shorter average heights) 1 of the dice dropped to the height generated. This means the standard average ethnicities (Chelaxian, Keleshite, Kellid, Bonuwat, Taldan, Varisian, Vudrani) would fall within the normal ranges for Table 7-3, and make it so the ethnicities that have taller average heights can generate a height score of up to 7'4" (for males) and 6'11" (for females), and also make it that the shortest heights generated for the shorter on average ethnicities can be as short as 4'2" (for males) and 3'9" (for females).


CrystalSeas wrote:
Amiros Valeri wrote:
The two stances are contradictory and a person should not have both stances.

People can take contradictory stances. There is nothing to stop them from doing that.

Your rule that they "should not" do something doesn't apply to the rest of us. Many of us are perfectly capable of holding two contradictory opinions, and don't have a problem when other people do.

The word "should" is frequently a flag that points out that the rest of the sentence is fantasy, and not how the real world works.

Opinions and stances are not automatically the same thing.

While someone is capable of appreciating two opposing stances, the person can only act on one of them at a given time.

An example: Voting Day. You cannot take an effective stance (aside abstaining) of 'all candidates should get my vote' that has any actual effect. You can only choose one to support (by the singular vote you are allowed).

Back to the subject matter: a person has three choices: abstain from 'casting an effective vote', want an official ethnicity height table or does not want an official ethnicity height table.

Your example of the word 'should' is inaccurate. Scientists use the word 'should' because if what should have happened did not happen, there must be another variable they have to identify that affected the normal results. Quality control in food processing factories are a real-world example of this in practice.

By the way, is not 'my rule'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems the 'no, there should not be such a table' side is by two different types of people opposed to such a thing.

The first ones are the ones who incorrectly think such a thing would be a 'mechanical rules set'. Again refer to table 7-3 in the core rulebook. That is as much a 'mechanical rules set' as a table that incorporates the various Golarion human ethnicities would be. If you treat table 7-3 as optional, then do the same should such a table be officially given to us. That problem is SOLVED.

The other seems to be from people who are thinking doing such a thing would offend members of our real-world ethnicities. Doing such a thing would not do it any more than the physical descriptions you have come up and published for them. If that has been an issue in the past then why would the books that came later (like Inner Sea Races) still include descriptions that could be viewed as offending members of real-world ethnicities. We players, know that Golarion used some real-world stuff as inspiration. We also know that Golarion is NOT Earth. We also know that the human ethnicities of Golarion are NOT the ethnicities of Earth (even if real-world ethnicities and cultures might have been part of the inspiration for them). As latter books, like Inner Sea Races, continue to include physical descriptions that deviate from average humans (core rulebook) it can be deduced that Paizo does not think that it is an issue to do so. Logical Deduction: they should not think having such a table to incorporate their FAKE (aka not real-world) human ethnicities is an issue. Problem solved.

Then there are the Pathfinder players who desire a table that much better reflects and incorporates the differences between the various human ethnicities of Golarion. Without such an official table given to us the problem is NOT SOLVED.

Why is it 'okay' to tell us specific Golarion human ethnicities are (on average) taller or shorter than humans of other ethnicities, but than take a stance that it is 'not okay' to make a table that does? This question is the crux of the whole discussion. The two stances are contradictory and a person should not have both stances.


Khudzlin wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

I'm with Rysky - Hard-coded would be a table.

As it's written now, you have ethnic tendencies, but no-one is required to follow them. Want to play a short Ulfen? Go for it. A tall Tien? Sure. But the lack of actual rules means that while the ethnic descriptions describe the ethnic averages, they do not describe a mechanical restriction upon "your PC".

So play a tall Tien who everyone at home thought was magical. Play a short Beykar known affectionately to his family and friends as "Runt", even though he's 6' 8".

The racial height/weight tables are already guidelines rather than strict rules, because height/weight is flavor, not mechanical (the Bred for War trait notwithstanding). Having tables you could refer to for random generation wouldn't prevent you from playing a tall Tian or short Bekyar, but it would give you a clearer reference point.

Thank you, Khudzlin. That is why a request for such a table is not unreasonable (and why some players were expectantly disappointed when the book that detailed the human ethnicities in greater detail lacked such a table).


Chemlak wrote:

I'm with Rysky - Hard-coded would be a table.

As it's written now, you have ethnic tendencies, but no-one is required to follow them. Want to play a short Ulfen? Go for it. A tall Tien? Sure. But the lack of actual rules means that while the ethnic descriptions describe the ethnic averages, they do not describe a mechanical restriction upon "your PC".

So play a tall Tien who everyone at home thought was magical. Play a short Beykar known affectionately to his family and friends as "Runt", even though he's 6' 8".

Core rulebook, page 170: table 7-3: Random height and weight table.

The core rulebook states you are wrong about hard-coded table not existing.

Core rulebook, page 169, third paragraph, "To determine a character's height, roll the modifier dice on Table 7-3 and add the result, in inches, to the base height for your character's race and gender.

As for the people who are currently under the false assumption that the height/weight of a character does not have a mechanical aspect to it.

Example of how it is hard-coded (which by the way I STRESS is NOT the point of the reasonable request for a random height table to incorporate the averages of the ethnicities who have DIFFERENT average heights than the 'average human").

Player 1 is playing a 6'10" half orc that weighs 318 pounds and is wearing full plate (50 pounds). Player 2 is playing a Halfling with a Strength score of 5. The halfling's drag limit capacity is 187.5 pounds. The half-orc gets dropped (from ranged attacks). The half-orc and Halfling are 20 feet from a door that they can close and have total cover and concealment. The Halfling goes to drag the his half-orc ally into the building but cannot get him to safety because he is simply too heavy for the Halfling to drag. That is a mechanical effect based on what some incorrectly assume is 'flavor text'.

Your examples of a short Ulfen and a tall Tien is why I decided to go with a weighted system that still makes any ethnicity capable of generating a height that is within the standard height range from the table from the core rulebook. My table adjustments weights it so the average result gives an average result for each specific ethnicity. The only aspect it does not incorporate is the 'hard-code' that has been giving to us in the physical descriptions of the human ethnicities that are not within the possible range of the core rulebook table. It is impossible to generate a typical (average) Bekyar with the table (though I incorporated a mechanic to allow heights that are not normally viable in the standard table - which requires either two 1's on the 2d10 roll (for the ethnicities that the descriptions state are shorter than average humans) or two 10's on the 2d10 roll (for the ethnicities that descriptions are taller than average humans). It also removes the 'hard-coded' max height for Tians that their ethnicity physical description write-up gives them.

An official table would be nice to have though. For those who do not want to use it - simply do not use it. Just like some players already decide not to use the table from the core rulebook. That does not mean that the table is not hard-coded (which by the official rules it is - there is no mention regarding a player having the option to choose the PC's height (like there is regarding age of the PC).


Khudzlin wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I've always found it a little interesting that a Shoanti woman (max height 6'1" by the table) can only barely qualify for the Bred For War race trait (which requires 6'+ height).
I thought that height and weight were pure flavor (like gender). Having them pushed into mechanical territory just seems wrong.

Height of an individual is not mechanical territory. If it was they were not have random height and weight tables for the different races (including humans). Remember that just like the standard (core rulebook) random heights/weight table - such a table need not be used if the GM/group/player does not want to. It would provide a resource (like the existing core rulebook table is) that actually takes into account the different human ethnicity height averages.

It is flavor. But since the Golarion human ethnicities' physical descriptions include specific (non-vague) details about the average height for some of the ethnicities, than it would make sense to have a random height weight table that incorporates them into it.

By taking the stance that having such a thing is mechanical than it is also taking the stance that there is a mechanical difference between male humans and female humans in the game (since females are 5 inches shorter and 35 pounds lighter). Height is flavor, just like gender. There should not be an issue with this. If there is then there should not been differences in average/minimum/maximum heights of the various Golarion human ethnicities - of which there definitely are (Garundi, Mwangi, Shoanti, Tians and Ulfens.

With what has been officially printed about the different heights of the Golarion human ethnicities, the following lists them in descending height order.

Taller than average human ethnicities:

Mwangi-Bekyar (exceedingly tall, many topping 7 feet)
Ulfen (most are quite tall, with men starting at 6 feet and the women just a few inches shorter)
Garundi (are rather tall and solidly built)
Shoanti (are powerfully built and often stand more than 6 feet as adults)
Mwangi-Mauxi (these tall, patrician folk)

Average height human ethnicities:

Chelaxian, Keleshite, Kellid, Mwangi-Bonuwat, Taldan, Varisian, Vudrani

Shorter than average human ethnicities:

Tian (Tians tend to be smaller and slighter than people of Avistan and Garund)
Mwangi-Zeng (The Zenj are slightly shorter than average humans).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Amiros Valeri wrote:

There are disclaimers in the books. Dragon Empires Gazetteer states that the Tian Xia was inspired by various real-world Asian cultures/mythos but also states that Tian Xia is not Asia.

Which means that the natives of Tian Xia aren't required to be short. If they have a less grain-fed diet they can be considerably taller than their Asian inspirations. That's why the Romans who were grain-fed were towered over by the Germanic barbarians who ate a diet that Atkins would have approved of.

You seem to be missing the point. We have been given official physical descriptions regarding the Golarion ethnicities - which about half of them includes descriptions that gives us facts regarding their average height not being the same as the default human average. You are basing your envisioning of Tians without taking into account what has been officially printed about their appearance. What requires the majority of Tians to be short is THE official given physical descriptions of Tians from the Inner Sea World Guide. It is kind of pointless to include such descriptions (which serve the purpose of us - the players - to better envision the world of Golarion) if then we are informed that such non-vague descriptions are 'vague'.

I am referring to tables that actually take into account what Paizo has decided the Golarion human ethnicities look like - which includes significant differences in the average height for about half the ethnicities compared to the average height for the remaining human ethnicities (which by default fall into range provided by the random height/weight table from the core rulebook).

Specifically regarding the Tians - from the officially published books:

"Tians tend to be smaller and slighter than people of Avistan and Garund. Men only infrequently grow as tall as 5 1/2 feet, while women often barely break 5 feet in height."

By the officially give physical descriptions the majority of Tians are indeed shorter than the other Golarion human ethnicities (with the Mwangi-Zenj being an exception).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Including descriptions of the average, minimum and maximum heights of the ethnicities (which are indeed given in the Inner Sea World Guide and Inner Sea Races) is most definitely not 'vague descriptions' regarding their heights. The weight differences can easily be considered vague descriptions, so a Golarion human ethnicity height table need not include the weight aspect. Please provide some clarification to the questions below (which are from the definitely not vague descriptions of Golarion human ethnicities). By doing so you will be providing GMs and players who prefer to have a random height table that better results in averages that make sense for the definitely (not vague) height parameters that have been officially published.

Vague descriptions is not accurate regarding the average height descriptions that are given in the ethnicity physical write-ups.

As determined from the random height and weight table from the core rulebook: The average human male is 5'9" and 175 pounds. The average human female is 5'4" and 140 pounds.

Garundi:
ISWG: "Typical Garundi are rather tall and solidly built."
ISR: "The average height for Garundi is several inches taller than the average human overall"

The above two officially given descriptions tells us that the average Garundi is definitely taller than the 'average' human (as determined by the core rulebook). Can you at least clarify how many inches are meant by the ISR description of 'several inches taller' - or the range that you consider several? What is the minimum height that you consider 'rather tall'?

Mwangi-Bekyar:
ISWG: "The Bekyar are exceedingly tall - many topping 7 feeting tall"
ISR: "Most of the isolationist Bekyars stand a head taller than other Mwangi and have muscular builds."

By the phrase 'topping' do you mean that 7 feet is the maximum height or that is the minimum height of the many that top 7 feet? If you mean that 7 feet is the maximum height then what is the minimum height that you consider is 'exceedingly tall'? 7 feet tall is not a viable height generated by the table in the Core rulebook. Bekyar as a whole are 'exceedingly tall' - meaning the standard human height range table would be greatly in accurate to use to generate a random height for them. That is the purpose the random height table - for GMs and players (who choose to do so) to be able to roll randomly to determine the height of a PC/NPC.

Mwangi-Mauxi:
ISWG: "These tall, patrician folk"

We now have three different ranges of tall from only Garundi, Bekyar and Mauxi. What is the different height ranges for "tall", "rather tall" and "exceedingly tall". They are obvious different (hence we know compared to average humans we know the average heights in ascending order are standard (core rulebook) human, Mauxi, Garundi, Bekyar.

Mwangi-Zenj:
ISWG: "The Zenj are slightly shorter than average humans, with slender, muscular builds with wiry black hair."
ISR: "The Zeng people of the continental interior and southern savannas are both the most numerous and the most varied in their coiffure and attire; they're the shortest of the Mwangi people and tend toward compact, athletic builds."

So we know from the descriptions for the Mwangi ethnicities that the height average for each is different: in ascending order: Zenj, Bonuwat (which would be standard core rulebook human average), Mauxi, Bekyar.

Shoanti:
ISR: "Shoanti are powerfully built, and often stand more than 6 feet tall as adults."

This one is easy enough to figure out as 6' is not more than 6' and often can easily be viewed as not quite the majority. The word often used as a parameter also tells us 40 to 50% (as that is the definition of often in the 3.5 D&D Monster Manual - as Pathfinder used the 3.5 rules set as the base rules set).

Tians:
Not touching on the weight/build differences, there are only two relevant officially given descriptions regarding Tian heights.

ISWG: "Tians tend to be smaller and slighter than people of Avistan and Garund. Men only infrequently grow as tall as 5 1/2 feet, while women often barely break 5 feet in height."
Dragon Empires Gazetteer: "As with their neighbors, the Tian-Dans and Tian-Dtangs, the Tian-Hwans tend to have thin builds and tan skin - of the three, they also tend to be the shortest."

So the definitely not vague description of Tian tells us the following: males reach 5'6" only infrequently (infrequently is less than often).
Is what was meant that the males only reach a maximum height of 5'6" or a height of 5'6" or taller.
For the females what do you consider barely breaking 5 feet? 1 inch? 2? 3? less than 4? less than 3?

Ulfen:
ISWG: "Most Ulfen are quite tall, with men starting at 6 feet and the women just a few inches shorter."
ISR: "Men and women alike often exceed 6 feet in height."

What do you mean by quite tall. Is 'quite tall' the same height as 'rather tall' (Garundi) or is one taller than the other - and if so which do you consider the taller of the 'quite tall' and 'rather tall'?

Regarding the ISWG description: all male Ulfen start at 6' or that most male Ulfen start at 6 feet? What do you consider a few inches (or which range do you consider a few inches)?

Regarding the ISR description: standard female humans (from the core rulebook) have a maximum height of 6'1". - often (40 to 50%). So based on the description and the standard height range for female humans - about half of Ulfen females are exactly 6'1" with the remaining half being within a range that is either A) only a few inches shorter than 6 feet or B) the rest of the standard range for female humans (4'7" to 6'0").

The average height of the Golarion human ethnicities has already been hard-coded from the physical descriptions that have been officially published in the Inner Sea World Guide, Inner Sea Races and (to a lesser extent) Dragon Empires Gazetteer.

A suggestion for future books if you want to not 'hard-code' average racial/ethnicity heights: Use descriptors such as 'some' or 'many' instead of words like 'average', 'most', 'often' (as these three words 'hard-code').

According the core rulebook, a player (RAW) does not even get to choose the height and weight of their character but is instructed to determine their character's height and weight by using the Random Height and Weight Table. This means by using the standard (and only officially existing) table that many results do not properly align up with about half of the Golarion human ethnicities. Hence the request that an official random height table for the various Golarion human ethnicities is a very reasonable (and logical) request.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jessica> The appearances of Golarion human ethnicities have already been dictated by the descriptions that have been given in the Inner Sea World Guide, Inner Sea Races and Dragon Empires Gazetteer. If Paizo's stance had changed since printing the Inner Sea World Guide regarding feeling that they do not want to 'dictate' the appearances of human ethnicities any longer, then why did Inner Sea Races also include such appearance descriptions?

If you were not interested in doing something like that, than why do the ethnicity physical appearances write-ups include ones that specifically point out they are taller or shorter than average humans?

In short: there are already officially released books containing physical descriptions (including specific ethnicity height and weight differences compared to 'average humans' - which there is an official existing height/weight table for). So how is it that making a human ethnicity height and weight table that simply incorporates the already physical height/weight descriptions published in Pathfinder books be a 'bad thing' while the descriptions of the ethnicities in the book are not a 'bad thing'?

Another way to word it: Paizo has decided to give us a great detailed variety of human ethnicities for Golarion, which include descriptions of physical features and how they compare to each other regarding height and weight/build. How is having an offical height/weight table that actually reflects the different heights/weights of the Golarion human ethnicities that Paizo decided to create for the game a bad thing?

Simply put: it is silly to give physical descriptions that include the different average heights of the various human ethnicities then claim that it would be 'wrong' to create a height/weight table to reflect such differences that have already been described in the physical appearance write-ups.

There are disclaimers in the books. Dragon Empires Gazetteer states that the Tian Xia was inspired by various real-world Asian cultures/mythos but also states that Tian Xia is not Asia.

Your reply/stance contradicts with what has already been given to us (the ethnicity descriptions that dictate what each ethnicity looks like - including height differences between the ethnicities).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jessica and Larkos> I am not referring to mechanical games rules that affect gameplay (the height and weight of a PC is trivial). I am referring to random height and weight tables that actually reflect the write-ups of the various human ethnicities in the Campaign Settings books. For example the height given in one of the ethnicities' write-ups is impossible to generate with the random height table from the core rulebook (Mwangi-Bekyar). I am not sure how the miscommunication happened. Playing Chelaxian's advocate: based on your stance there should not be any random height and weight tables for any of the races. The current (and only official) random height table for humans generates heights that are not average for about half of the ethnicities.

Charles> The core rulebook does not take into account the human ethnicities (since the Core rules are not campaign-world specific.

RDM42> I agree that they would not be problematic. If they were that means that any and all such tables (that do exist) are problematic (which they are not).

Chris> I have not checked since my last post so I did not see the baiting post. Thank you for removing it.

I have come up with a way to generate heights (that stay within the standard human range) so that the results weight the non-average height human ethnicities to become closer to the descriptions the ethnicities are given in the books. It is by using the roll-keep mechanic of L5R. For example if a GM wants to make it so that Ulfen males are at least 6 feet tall (which one sourcebook states they start at 6 feet) make the roll 3k2d10 (which makes 53% of Ulfen males be at least 6 feet tall). 4k2d10 would make 70% of Ulfen males be at least 6 feet tall. 5k2d10 would make 81% of them at least 6 feet tall. 6k2d10 would make 88% of them at least 6 feet tall.

Jessica> An official release of a proper human ethnicity height and weight table would be good to have. It would not be problematic as it has nothing to do with mechanical rules (such as traits, which your post suggests that is what you thought this thread was about). If you still believe that a such a table (just for human ethnicities' height and weight) would be problematic, could you kindly explain how the official existing height and weight tables for the other races are not problematic?

*scratches his head and wonders how a simple question got non-related aspects (traits/game mechanic rules) attached to it*


Thanks, Gisher. I have the race books (ARG, ISR) as well as the ISWG. I know some of my players were disappointed that Inner Sear Races did not include such charts (since that book should have been the one that had such charts).

I was hoping Paizo might have made a web enhancement by now for ISR that included such charts.


Has Paizo published an official table for Golarion's human ethnicities yet, and if so which book(s) contain it?


Thanks for the input, everyone. I searched and found the official ruling on the blogs (unless it has been changed since then). Fortunately we are early enough in the campaign that all but one chronicle sheet will definitely not be lost. We just need to pause the AP campaign to run some low-level scenarios until their PFS PCs get to the needed 'sweet level' to ensure the stack of chronicle sheets they will earn will not 'go up in smoke'.


KingOfAnything wrote:
I didn't think the 1-5s were so deadly as to be a worry.

I have run a level 1 PFS scenario for three of my players already and one PC and the NPC I played (to make a legal table) nearly died during it.


leonvios wrote:
I do not understand, why you cannot play up to the point of the pregen death then use your resources to retrieve your body and gear and ressurrect maybe? or even another tier system such as...lvl 1-4 Raise dead (gold or PP). lvl 5- 8 Raise dead (gold or PP) and rescue team 5pp, lvl 9-12 Resurrection (gold or pp).

My question is not regarding a higher level (held) chronicle sheet that a pre-gen gains permanent death. It is regarding a player who has a bunch of held higher-level chronicle sheets (in which no PC death occurred) and then the player playing his lower-level PFS character and gaining permanent death (and is too low of a level to be able to remove permanent death status)....what happens to the accrued chronicle sheets that player has attached to that character? (because now the character has permanently died before ever reaching the levels those higher level chronicle sheets which were earned for).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Scenario: A player has earned a number of chronicle sheets that his PFS character has not attained the character levels to have the chronicle sheets applied to his character yet. Then he plays his character in a lower-level scenario and dies. What happens to the accrued held chronicle sheets?

The above becomes even more important with the new changes to the PFS guide regarding that a player must choose the PFS character to apply pre-gen towards before playing the scenario. Common sense theory would mean the held chronicle sheets should be applied to a different PFS character number - since it does not make sense that a character who died permanently at a lower level went on to adventure in scenarios post-death.

My entire months-long plans could be wasted as my players are accruing and holding a number of higher-level chronicle sheets for their PFS characters so that after I finish running the AP and then a few low-level PFS scenarios so that their PFS characters will be high enough level to have the held chronicle sheets be applied so I can run a sanctioned high-level module for their characters. I then plan on running them through an entire PFS scenario campaign with the last chronicle sheet from the AP applied to brand new level 1 characters (using the over 200 dollars worth of scenarios I purchased last month).

I do not want to break away from the current AP to play a few low level scenarios for their PFS characters which they will not be playing again for over a year) just to ensure their PFS characters are not at risk of dying and the players permanently losing the benefits of the 10 chronicle sheets they will have earned (6 from AP, 4 from PnP) from playing and earning chronicle sheet credit for over a years worth of play time. My players are having a blast with the AP and having to pause the campaign for at least 6 weeks (we only play once per 2 weeks)could cause one of the players to lose interest in showing up (because he joined the group to play a steady campaign, not one that gets paused for weeks at a time).


The alternate tiefling ability uses the same wording as the ability for redcaps (with the only difference being the redcap is small using a medium two-handed weapon and the tiefling using large weapons). By the ability, the weapon used and doing the math on the attack bonus given with the medium scythe, it can be seen that the wording removes both the -2 attack penalty for the weapon being created for someone one size category larger as well as making it so the smaller creature can use two-handed weapons designed for the larger creature's size category.


William Boyle wrote:
A while back Mike Brock said you could run the AP in campaign mode using 13th Age if you wanted. So you have a pretty free hand! I understand you could interpret the assigning of Chrons in the same way as you do pregen credit meaning that the new rules apply. I don't think that they do as you are not actually playing with pregens.

The current rules as written state you treat campaign mode PCs as if they were pre-generated characters as I pointed out above (page 11 of the new guide).

Lamplighter, Claude and Steven let me know these important aspects of campaign mode that is not included in the guide.

As Mike stated that before the new guide was released, was there a specific reason such an important bit of information was not included in the guide?

Would I be correct in thinking that each year's Guide should include any changes the leadership has made and posted on the blogs during the twelve months since the previous guide was released? Or are GMs/players expected to read through the entirety of the blogs since season 0 to ensure they know all relevant rules that are not included in the most current guide? Not trying to be rude/mean. Apologies if it is coming off that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Correct. The GM has the authority to ressurect dead PCs in any manner, and the PFS character does not need to pay for removal of conditions from the campaign mode PC. What happens in Campaign Mode stays in Campaign Mode.

Thank you. One of my worries has been if one of the PCs die then it would put a considerable dent in our 2+ year's worth plan of our future PFS character campaign. That completely removes that potential significant hiccup to our plans.

Thank you, Lamplighter, Claude and Steven. That gets an athach's three thumbs up.


claudekennilol wrote:


But in a home-campaign you don't report deaths. You roll up a new character and keep playing. If you complete the book, you get a chronicle sheet.

I do not recall reading that in the season 7 guide. Was that something that was mentioned in the blogs that never made it to the guides?

Is that the official rule regarding characters in campaign mode for APs (and campaign mode modules)? That it does not matter if one of the characters die? It is based solely on the player (not a specific character) completing a book in the AP set?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Amiros Valeri wrote:


I am running Skulls & Shackles for my home group using home-brew rules. (...)
AP's using Campaign mode is not the same as getting pregen credit, so you don' have to worry about this happening.

Yes, it is. We are using the home-brewed rules, applying pre-gen credit towards actual PFS campaign characters.

Page 11 of the new guide, starting in the last paragraph of the first column "Credit is applied to an appropriate Roleplaying Guild character as if the character created was a pregenerated character."

> Andrew: if needed, please ensure that modification to the current wording of the new guide specifically lets us know if the new 'choose before you play' rule only applies to when you are playing iconic pre-gens in a PFS scenario, and not for modules and adventure paths.

As only gold point surcharges were listed for level 1, 4 and 7 pre-gens it would seem the intent was only for iconic pre-gens played in scenarios.

The Chelaxian's advocate viewpoint would be since there is no specific exceptions listed that it applies to ALL pre-gens (whether iconic or home-brewed PCs using campaign mode). With no surcharge unless the pre-gen being played is exactly level 4 or level 7. This is an example of why the current wording in the new guide is unclear.


Jeff Hazuka wrote:

Simplification by reduction:

Whenever you play a pregenerated character, it can only be applied at level 1, scaled down appropriately.

I personally do not like that option. I will take an educated guess I am not the only one.

I am running Skulls & Shackles for my home group using home-brew rules. My players are applying their pre-gen credit to the same PFS characters. Once S&S is over, I will be running Plunder & Peril for them, again using home-brew rules PCS with the same PFS characters getting the chronicle sheets. Then I will be running a PFS character campaign for them using the PFS characters they applied the sheets to. This will allow us to have a quicker PFS campaign (9 low-level scenarios, a level 10 sanctioned module and a seeker arc module.

As our group has limited play time (we only meet and play twice a month - work, family, other obligations, etc.) this means our 'condensed' PFS campaign will be 9 sessions (4 and half months) a month or two(level 10 module) plus at least another two months for the seeker arc module) for a minimum of two thirds of a year of real time. That is not including the over a year of real time to play the actual AP and P&P module.

If players were forced to always assign pre-gen credit to only a 1st level character then the added bonus of such plans means some of my players (and others' ?) would prefer to simply stick to non-organized play. How is that helpful to PFS?

What about bonus chronicle sheets that can only be gained if all the previous three chronicle sheets were applied to the same character? That would make that impossible.


Nefreet wrote:
Amiros Valeri wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
I don't believe it's possible to have a level 7 character with 0pp and 150gp.

With the suggested +1 XP/+0 PP/ + 0 gold it is entirely possible. Wei Ji pointed out the negative prospect of this approach (which I put a solution to above).

How it is possible:

Player players a level 4 pre-gen 9 times at normal track. He dies every time. He now has +9 XP, +0 PP, + 0 150 gold to his starting 150 gp, 0 PP, 0 XP. The associated character is now level 4.

The player plays level 7 pre-gen nine times before playing the associated character. Same thing. The associated character is now level 7 with a net total of 18 XP, 150 gold in gear/gold, 0 PP.

Pregen credit doesn't work that way, though.

The method I outlined is the maximum amount of Pregen credit possible.

You can't assign 1st level credit to a character over 1st level.

You can't apply 4th level credit until your character is 4th level.

You can't assign 4th level credit to a character over 4th level.

You can't apply 7th level credit until your character is 7th level.

You can't assign 7th level credit to a character over 7th level.

So you would need to receive credit for levels 2-3, and 5-6, in some other fashion.

Nefreet, you were misinterpreting the proposed change. The associated character gains the 1 XP right away (this is how we would penalize the the associated character if the pre-gen dies without the associated character flat-out dying. It uses the same principle that many (most?) on here seem to think - the death of the pre-gen affects the lower-level character right away.

Having the death status effect 'in stasis' until the associated character reaches the level of the pre-gen and then has the option of paying to remove the death status effect would alleviate some (but not all) of the issues the community has with the current new official rules change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
I'm going to miss playing Seoni. :/

If there was a 'sad' (negative sign instead of positive sign) to click, this post would have received one from me.

That is another issue that was not really addressed specifically before. Some people have favorite iconics and play them for that reason. This new rule change means some (many?) will either stop playing their favorite iconics or assign a new -xx character to the iconic. Some of the players will weigh the ability to earn the chronicle sheet for a character they like to play is more importantly than playing an iconic they love to play. That means those players are probably going to stop playing pre-gens.

In addition to the player that normally plays a favorite iconic chooses to not risk doing so - others who game with that player that enjoy how she/he plays that iconic no longer have that 'fun factor' as part of their PFS experience.


Nefreet wrote:
I don't believe it's possible to have a level 7 character with 0pp and 150gp.

With the suggested +1 XP/+0 PP/ + 0 gold it is entirely possible. Wei Ji pointed out the negative prospect of this approach (which I put a solution to above).

How it is possible:

Player players a level 4 pre-gen 9 times at normal track. He dies every time. He now has +9 XP, +0 PP, + 0 150 gold to his starting 150 gp, 0 PP, 0 XP. The associated character is now level 4.

The player plays level 7 pre-gen nine times before playing the associated character. Same thing. The associated character is now level 7 with a net total of 18 XP, 150 gold in gear/gold, 0 PP.

Once the character has become level 7 he it would appear he can no longer play pre-gens for scenarios. That is not entirely true as there is still the case of sanctioned adventure paths and certain modules which allow home-brewed 'pre-gens', which could give the pre-gen credit to an existing character that is level 7 or higher.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Player F: "He was on a series of pregens that had 'bad luck', guys. Go easy."

All but B, thought: "Why should we have to play with someone who doesn't even have the money to buy the right gear?"

That is a good point. Easy fix to that situation: Have a standardized list of 'pre-gen' gear for each character level. The character receives the gear before the scenario starts. The character does not get to retain any of that gear after the scenario is over and is not allowed to sell of that gear for the benefit of his/her own character, but is allowed to sell it off towards helping out the other characters at the table.

That solution fixes the problem you pointed out, AND it also means the player can help to remove statuses from other characters at the table. Still a penalty for the player's character, but not a penalty to the other players at the table.

My original suggestion of +0 XP, +0 PP, +0 gold and no boons prevents that situation as well. The player has gained credit for the chronicle (so cannot play it again in the same campaign mode). He wants a character (in the same campaign mode) to get that sheet. He will have to GM 10 games (if he was not a GM before) and use his first GM star replay so he can receive the chronicle (for another character). This solution does not penalize new players, and it also could encourage some players to become GMS because they want to get the benefits of a given chronicle sheet applied to one of their characters.


Sin of Asmodeus wrote:


That's all I take from this entire conversation. "I don't feel that if I play a pregen that my character should have to pay a thing if they die."
Please refute how anyone's conversation doesn't boil down in the end to this very thing.

My solution (with Brock's modification) does not boil down to that. Your associated character still gets penalized, and the more times you associated the same character to pre-gens, the higher the penalty becomes for each pre-gen death that occurs.


Andrew Christian wrote:


To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.

Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.

A better solution for players that are doing such things is this:

The GM is allowed (and expected) to kick that player from the table right away. The GM then takes over controlling the pre-gen the abusive player was running. If needed the GM disregards the pre-gen's action that just triggered him needing to kick the player from the table. This completely removes the negative consequences to the other players at the table.

The +1 XP, +0 GP, +0 PP, and all boons crossed off the chronicle sheet was my idea (with a change from +0 XP to + 1 XP being brock, no the other one...'s). As for risk of death, there is (though it is delayed, which in the case of non 1st-level pregens is the case as well). Below is how I mentioned it before.

Quote:

That is more of a penalty as it means the character is further to leveling up without the normal resources that normally go along with leveling up. With that you could have a level 1 PFS character potentially reach higher levels with still having only a beginning PC's wealth (150 gold) with nothing else. I think people would agree that is definitely a penalty.

Player A: "What do you mean you are level 3 with no fame or additional wealth?"

Player B: "I have had some really bad luck playing pre-gens."

Since playing a pre-gen that is higher level than your associated PFS character is giving you the risk that your associated character might die, this solution does work without all the headaches people have been referring to. Below is another example of how it still retains the risk of death that the PFS leaders want.

Since the assigned PFS PC is gaining XP and nothing else it means each time such a pre-gen death is assigned to the same PFS character, that character is at an ever-increasing risk of NOT having the normal resources that a higher level character usually has. Since the two primary resources to remove conditions are a character's prestige points and gold, such a character definitely has less resources than others of a character with the same XP/level. The more times a player chooses to associate the same PFS character to a pre-gen, the higher the risk becomes. It is the player's choice if he wants to continue to increase the penalty to the same PFS character. The more times s/he does so, the higher the risk when he plays the actual character that s/he will not have the necessary minimum resources to remove character death statuses.

Joe shows up. He plays pre-gens. Oh, he does not have a character yet and it is not a level 1 scenario? You attach his -1 character. New player boon is not lost. He wants to play in other higher level scenarios he can. He dies each time playing pre-gens. Each time a pre-gen he plays dies, the associated character gains more experience with zero resources (except normal class features/feats/ability increases). He finally gets around to play that associated character ("yes, my character is finally high enough I no longer have to play a pre-gen!")

His associated character is now level 4. He still only has his starting wealth, no prestige points. The ONLY way he is going to be able to prevent character death is if the other players sitting at the table pool their resources to save his character. Otherwise his character becomes perma-dead. Risk of death still happens. AND it happens at the level his actual character becomes the level he played a pre-gen because he did not have a character in that level tier yet.

The example above used a brand-new player, but the same effects happens to veteran players as well.

Steve has his favorite PC. Whenever he plays a pre-gen he assigns the chronicle sheet to his favorite PC. Pre-season 8 he got to play the scenario first and then get to decide which character got the sheet. If the pre-gen died or he does not like the stuff on the sheet for his favorite PC then he assigns the sheet to a new/another PC. Now in season 8 he assigns the sheet to his favorite PC (because he does not want to risk it having boons/gear he wants for his favorite PC and not being able to give it to him). His favorite PC. The pre-gen dies. Current rules, Steve might flat-out quit PFS entirely because the new rule is something that has not been around since he started playing PFS. This is an example of how the new rule could not only make us lose new potential players (because their very first character died as a result of playing a pre-gen in their very first game) but also how it could cause us to lose veteran PFS players as well.

If the +1 XP, +0 PP, +0 gold suggestion is made the new rule, than veteran players will not be afraid (nearly as much) to play a pre-gen so a table becomes valid (instead of the veteran players not wanting to simply create a new -xx character to take the hit for a chronicle sheet they have not received credit for yet prior to playing the pre-gen).

Using the chronicle sheet for S&S 3 as an example. It grants between 7 and 8 thousand gold on the slow track. That gold is enough to pay for a Raise Dead. So if the character gains the increased XP but nothing else from the sheet it means the character has lost out on the resources to prevent his character dying once.

Still a bit tired, so the above might not be worded as good as it could be. Anyone who is good at wordsmithing feel free to rework the wording if you think it would help.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>