B.O.B.Johnson's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. 94 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a player that would routinely mentioned they didn't like how limiting PFS was. Then they ran their own homebrew game that was at first anything goes, then within a month their homebrew was CRB only - much more limited than PFS.

I don't think Returning can be put on a bow:

CRB wrote:
Returning: This special ability can only be placed on a weapon that can be thrown. A returning weapon flies through the air back to the creature that threw it. It returns to the thrower just before the creature’s next turn (and is therefore ready to use again in that turn). Catching a returning weapon when it comes back is a free action. If the character can’t catch it, or if the character has moved since throwing it, the weapon drops to the ground in the square from which it was thrown. Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, telekinesis; Price +1 bonus.

Bows aren't thrown weapons. Neither are arrows.

Unless you mean a different enchantment?
Arrows also don't count as thrown weapons. They count as ammunition (which has its own special rules) and can also be used a light improvised melee weapon.

There is a spell called Abundant Ammunition which is cast on a quiver or pouch that contains nonmagical ammunition that basically allows you to not lose ammunition for the duration of the spell. I don't think there is an enchantment currently that matches this spell.

If this is a homebrew game, you could talk to your GM about being able to craft a quiver of Abundant Ammunition by getting a spell caster that can cast Permanency and Abundant Ammunition. In PFS you can't do this.

Note again, Abundant Ammunition only works on non-magical ammo.

Another alternative is Durable Arrows (available in Alchemy Manual and Elves of Golarion): http://www.archivesofnethys.com/EquipmentMiscDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Arrow%20 (durable)

These arrows cost an extra 1 gold apiece. In PFS, you have to buy 50 custom arrows at once, but you could buy 50 Addy Arrows for 3,000 gold, or 50 Durable Addy Arrows for 3,050 gold, and be able to retrieve your arrows after use (and you manage to slay whatever monster).

I don't remember the make exactly, but I thought you could reach a similar crit multiplier with a mounted Cavalier charging with a lance and certain feats like Spirited Charge.


There's a thread on it. One of the first posts is saying a x7 as a lvl 20 Cavalier. So throw in the Mythic and that's a x8. Don't know if any of that is really correct or not.

PS. There is also no rule on that all the pregens have to be used. If you want to play the scenario as 7 Reta Bigbads, then you can do so.

You can play with 4 to 7 players in We Be Goblins. You still have to use the 4 pregens, you just double up on some them. 3rd party pregens are definitely not legal for PFS.

Now for a non-PFS We Be Goblins, do whatever you want.

PS, here's the relevant rules on jumping acrobatics: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/skills/acrobatics.html#jump ing

Specifically this line:

PRD wrote:
Creatures with a base land speed above 30 feet receive a +4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed above 30 feet. Creatures with a base land speed below 30 feet receive a –4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed below 30 feet.

As to the mire brute, the beast has the 'grab' special attack. If you read the bestiary grab (ex) rules (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rule s#TOC-Grab-Ex-) any creature that has it gets +4 on grapple checks as a bonus. So while its CMB is normally +34, if it is making a grapple check, it rolls +38 instead, not 34+38.

It's like Improved Grapple feat. You take that feat, and from then on you get +2 to your CMB on any grapple checks. One key difference there is that while Grab gives +4 to CMB, it doesn't to CMD, but Improved Grapple gives +2 to both CMB and CMD on grapple checks.

Skill bonuses like the one you cited is not an add-on, it's a replacement. Meaning if the brownie uses acrobatics to jump, it gets +4 to the roll, not +8 or +12.

This is because it has a slower speed than 30 ft. Any creature that has less than 30 ft speed takes a stacking -4 on jump checks, while any creature above 30 ft get a bonus +4 on jump checks.


Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Not entirely sure if you can post without using your real name, but my opinion of certain VOs has grown thanks to their forum activity under their real name. I love to name names, but I recall using something pretty critical Lau Bannenberg made for a scenario ... and thus the name stuck.

It's always eerie when people address me by my full name :P

I don't remember having the option to continue posting under original nickname. Could probably use an alias but I'm fine with it. I would have preferred a system with only first name I suppose.

I see my old VC (old being cause I moved not because he isn't VC) post on the forums using his alias and not real name.

I'm not sure if it depends on what sub-forum or not, but back when I was a VA (before moving) some posts would have my name and others would have my default alias. Mainly because I never tried to figure out how to change what I post under.


HogarthUndead wrote:
My experience with PFS is admittedly mostly limited to watching at this point, but I have noticed that no one seems to enforce encumbrance. Is this a PFS rule I missed or something? I have been observing at a few different shops recently and noticed a pattern. There are tons of medium characters with 7 strength whose clothing + armor + weapons alone should have them encumbered, taking 30-foot moves. This seems to be par for the course at the different locations I have gone to.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but dwarves are medium sized and start with a racial trait (unless they dumped it for an alternate trait) that makes it so they never go slower then their base speed due to armor or encumbrance (slow and steady trait). You could have a dwarf cleric who dumped strength and took the 'Travel domain'. You now have a dwarf with a base speed of 30 that has a racial trait that says they never go slower than their base speed of 30 feet regardless of armor or encumbrance.

Or completely ignoring the dwarf thing, a human cleric that dumped strength and took and the travel domain will have a base speed of 40 but drop to 30 due to encumbrance.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Str 5 seems like it would impair melee, but you could work around it. I've debated running a character that relies on critical hits to hit things in combat. There's a feat, Disposable Weapon, which allows a you to break a fragile weapon to auto-confirm a critical hit. So with an Obsidian Kukri, for example, you could rely on the crit range to hit things and break your weapons in order to confirm critical hits. With enough attacks (paired weapons, plus maybe another source of bonus swings, like ninja ki), you could actually make a character is reliant on critical hitting their opponents.

Another interesting option is the Guided Hand feat, which allows Wis to attack with the Favored Weapon of your deity.

That's an interesting thought. The biggest downside I see to that is that even if something is in the crit range, if it isn't a nat 20, it isn't an auto-hit. So if say you roll a nat 19, but because of your dumped strength, low bab, whatever, if 19 + you mod doesn't count as a hit, you can't roll to confirm because you missed (or use the disposable feat).


I personally wish that the whole AR was DB driven and part of being DB driven, it auto-generated a dated change log, and it is linked to my account so it'd highlight changes that have occurred since the last time I checked it.

So here's the DB structure/workflow:

Table: AdditionalResources_MainSections
ID - internal/hidden number used to link various rulebooks to various main sections.
SectionName - the name of a section.

^ Example entry of this table: ID = 1, SectionName = 'Pathfinder Adventure Path'.

Workflow: this table would used to group the rulebooks into logical sections.


Table: AdditionalResources_RuleBook
ID - internal/hidden number used to link certain tables to this rulebook entry.
SectionID - a linked column that links back to the MainSections table to determine what section this rulebook belongs in.
RulebookName - the name of the rulebook.
RulebookEntry - the HTML formatted text for this rulebook.

^ Example entry of this table: ID 1, SectionID = 1, RulebookName = 'Rise of the Runelords', RulebookEntry = 'Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide Equipment: all equipment on pages 10-11 9except hide shirt and Varisian Idol)...'

Workflow: this table would used to store the current entry for each rulebook.


Table: AdditionalResources_ChangeLog
ChangeDate - a Date field for when the change occurred.
RulebookID - the ID that refers to the book entry that was updated/changed/added.
OldEntry - the HTML formatted text for the previous entry.
NewEntry - the HTML formatted text for the new entry.

The primary key would be both the RulebookID and the ChangeDate.


Insert DB Trigger: Whenever you add a new entry to the _Rulebook table, the DB trigger would generate a new entry in this table with the current date, the new rulebook's ID, an empty OldEntry value, and then the new text for the NewEntry.
Update DB Trigger: Whenever you add update an entry in the _Rulebook table, the DB trigger would generate a new entry in this table with the current date, the updated rulebook's ID, an OldEntry with the value of what it was before the update, a NewEntry value of what is now.


Last Table: AdditionalResources_LastChecked
AccountID - the ID to link to each player's Paizo account.
LastCheckedDate - the date when the player's account last visited the Additional Resources page.

Workflow: when the player visits the additional resources page, update this entry, but before doing, highlight any rulebooks entries in red that have been added/changed since the last time the player visited based on the entries in the _ChangeLog table.


One last perk about it being DB driven, you could use the BBCode here used for the forum instead of HTML, make it a simple webform that John Compton and other select people have access to. They wouldn't need to know HTML, just the basic BBcode that is commonly used on this forum, and it wouldn't need to wait for the web dev team to update the page.


Lau Bannenberg wrote:
- Put an external limit on the number of tries. Each time you don't make the Diplomacy check, the listener's patience grows thinner, and the DC goes up. If you don't open the lock and escape within five tries the guard gets you. You can try Survival to pick up the track again, but there's an hour cooldown time in the rules. In that time the enemy gets farther away/has more time to prepare.

There is already an external limit on Diplomacy. Most NPCs will shift in the negative direction if you fail the DC by too much - at which point they might not turn 'combat' hostile, but they definitely won't talk to you anymore.


gatherer818 wrote:

What information he shouldn't have? If he's capable of inferring those kinds of details from looking at insects or whatever, then he's capable of doing so (and should receive a check to try). If he's not capable of doing so, then why did you offer him a chance to try in the first place?

Honestly.. why DID you offer options in the first place? Rather than saying "you can roll Heal or Perception", just say "do you want to try to determine the time of death?" and let the player come up with what to do. They'll probably try Heal first if they're trained, but if that doesn't work, Knowledge(nature) to see if they can determine anything based on knowledge of the insects eating the corpse would be a creative and awesome attempt. That way there's no "metagaming" (we're clearly not going to agree on that issue) AND the player is engaged with the game, instead of simply being offered...

Because the writers of scenarios write the scenarios for the lowest common denominator. If you made every possible skill check instance only allow 1 type of skill, then every PFS table would be 'who's bringing the skill monkey?'. By allowing two or three different possible types skills, the hope is that even if you don't have a skill monkey in the party, at least 1 player might have 1 of the 3 skills listed.

I remember playing one scenario would over half of the checks in the scenario only allowed Knowledge Nature, which no one in the party had so we basically missed out on about half of the available information automatically because we had no idea it was going to be a heavy knowledge nature scenario. If the scenario had done something like say 'the PCs can do a Knowledge (nature) DC 15 or Survival DC 25 to know blah blah blah', we would at least had a chance (maybe not a good chance, but a chance regardless) to get the information.

The skill checks are meant to (in my opinion) allow each player to contribute to out-of-combat success of the scenario by bringing different skill sets.


Spacelard wrote:

I read OR as inclusive.

Who is right?

That is why input about the intent from "The Others" will resolve this, otherwise we'll just have circular arguments.

If OR was contained in vacuum I might read it as inclusive, but it isn't in a vacuum. There are other cases where AND is used instead. AND is very much inclusive. OR is exclusive.

Also from a logic perspective, AND is inclusive, OR is exclusive.


Quentin Coldwater wrote:
Also, this isn't an argument, but the part about taking 20 contradicts itself. The important part is that it states that you can do it as long as there's no penalty for failure. Disable Device, for example, states that if you fail by 5 or more, you trigger the trap. That's definitely a penalty for failure. Every GM I've seen rules that you can't take 20 on Disable Device.

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but those GMs are half wrong. Using take 20 on opening a lock is explicitly called out in the take 20 rules section in the CRB:

CRB p. 86 wrote:
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).

Later on in the skills it has this general guideline for all skills on retries:

"CRB p. 87 wrote:
Try Again: Any conditions that apply to successive attempts to use the skill successfully. If the skill doesn’t allow you to attempt the same task more than once, or if failure carries an inherent penalty (such as with the Climb skill), you can’t take 20. If this paragraph is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inherent penalty other than the additional time required.

You have to consult each individual skill 'Try Again' section to determine which skills allow retries, and if there is any special circumstances. For instance, Disable Device has:

CRB p. 95 wrote:

Try Again: Varies. You can retry checks made to disable traps if you miss the check by 4 or less. You can retry checks

made to open locks.

So you can't take 20 on disabling traps because there is a penalty for failing by 5 or more, but there is no penalty for 5 or more on opening a lock. However, there is a special circumstance to that: I certainly wouldn't allow a take 20 on Disable Device on opening a lock when there is roaming guards unless the player wants to automatically get caught by the guards.

In fact one of the evergreen scenarios has that exact situation where if the PC takes 'longer than a minute fiddling with the lock, the PC must succeed at a DC XX Stealth check to avoid being caught.' I might still allow a take 20 on that, but they'd have to succeed at 2 stealth checks, and the 2nd stealth check would be DC XX+2 for the fact that it will become increasingly likely that someone will come by every minute that passes.


I think the key that is being overlooked is that in all the scenarios I've run, the optional skills says 'OR' not 'AND'.

To quote the original example:

the PCs can attempt a Knowledge (religion), Spellcraft, or Heal check...

^ this reads a lot different than:

the PCs can attempt a Knowledge (religion), Spellcraft, AND Heal check...

Also for instance, in the post-briefing knowledge check, numerous scenarios have a 'Knowledge (local) or Diplomacy (gather information)' check that is allowed. Meaning each PC can make either a knowledge local check or a diplomacy check, but not both.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if it has been reported, but Shardra the Shaman pregen has 'lore keeper' in its statblock, but this is a typo. It should be 'lorekeeper' (no space) as it is a alternate dwarven racial trait that replaces greed from the ARG. So two things to fix really: remove the space, and add 'ARG' in superscript next to it to signify its source is the Advanced Race Guide.

I don't know if this the right place for this. If there is ever a seventh printing I'd like to suggest the following change to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat entry:

Here's the current entry:

CRB pg. 136 wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Chapter 8.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your offhand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each.
An unarmed strike is always considered light.

Later on a sidebar for Table 8-2 (for what does and doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity:

CRB pg. 183 wrote:
3 If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can combine one of these actions with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Anyway, the change I'd like to see is in the Benefit:. Something like "Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The time it takes to draw two light or one-handed weapons is reduced to the same amount of time it takes to draw one weapon normally." (and then the rest of the normal entry)

Cpt_kirstov wrote:
This won't work because it is a printable PDF as well so that people can bring it to game days (and are required to)

That's not true. You can add a link that generates the PDF. Just takes a little bit of programming - especially if you make it all DB driven.


4. On the main page, have the columns be able to be sorted - IE I can sort by book name ascending/descending, or sort by last updated ascending/descending.

This document has grown to an extreme length (and it is only going to keep growing).

Here's my wishlist for this document and how to improve the usability:

1. On main page for Additional Resources, instead of all the entries, have it be a simple table with 2 columns: Book Name / Last Updated
Book name would be the rule book name and a link to a sub-document. Last updated would be when the entry was last updated.

2. If the user is logged in, it checks when the user last visited the main page, and compares that to the 'Last Updated' entries. If an item is newer than the last time the user visited the page, it will be highlighted in red.

3. The sub-document page for each rulebook would have whatever last change in red, followed by a dated change log which dictates what was changed and when.

That's just my wishlist for making that document more user friendly and manageable.

Page 96 of the NPC Codex.

The Careful Initiate is a level 1 Monk. In its gear it lists two potions of magic weapon.

I'm wondering if these are meant to be oils instead of potions, as oils would be more logical:

1) You can't drink the potion and make all the weapons you are carrying become temporary +1 weapons.
2) The spell description of Magic Weapon has a target of 'weapon touched'.

However, further reading the spell description states:

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

^ So now I'm not sure if the potion thing was intentional or not, as the way I'm reading it, a monk could drink this potion (instead of using an oil) to give his unarmed strikes +1 enhancement.

The monk in question has other weapons, so if it was an oil it could be applied to any of the NPC's weapons.

So my question is, is meant to be an oil of magic weapon or was the potion not an oversight and was intentional to limit it to the monk's unarmed strikes?

Save or suck casters are people who build casters, whether that is a sorcerer, wizard, or whatever, that have spells where the monsters has to make the save (and usually the save DC is fairly high) or the combat is virtually over (aka, suck it).

For example, a save or suck spell would be blindness/deafness cast on the BBEG who has no lieutenants or way of clearing the blindness condition. Blindness/deafness spell also has a permanent duration - so it's not like it will wear off in a round or too.

Here's a real example of a save or suck caster using blindness/deafness: I was running a scenario and the BBEG at the end was a spell caster, the SoS caster cast blindness/deafness on the BBEG basically ending the fight as every single spell the BBEG required them to be able to see to target the enemy, and so the fight was over because the BBEG couldn't see, had no way of clearing the blindness, and the rest of the party could easily and safely wail on the BBEG. The SoS caster was a sorcerer who at that level (it was a low level scenario) had 3 main spells he used for every combat: color spray, glitterdust, and blindness/deafness. All 3 of which if the monsters failed the save, the combat was over.

Tripping = knocking prone:


PRD wrote:


You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.

(emphasis mine)

The question is what type of shield was the PC using? http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/equipment.html#shield-bash- attacks

^ heavy shields are 'one-handed weapons' and light shields are 'light weapons'. If it is a heavy shield then no they can't shield bash while grappled.

Also, I don't see why you can't trip while grappled. The grappled rules say you can do other CMBs, but they take a -2 penalty. Only escaping the grapple or reversing the grapple takes no penalty. I would imagine that if you are grappled and do trip your opponent, you go prone as well. Additionally, with being knocking back the opponent 5 or more feet, it doesn't break the grapple, so you have to move and fall prone with the grappler.

Thanks for the link to the FAQ. I tried being polite but I'm not very eloquent when talking - much better at writing (and even then not so much). I guess what annoyed me was not her misunderstanding of the rules, but was her unwillingness to even read the final feat I tried to show her (Neither Elf nor Human) and her disdain to much - such her 'well this is how I run it, so this is how it's going to be run here.'

I do realize this was my first game session in this area, so maybe it was just cause I was some outsider. I don't know. I am very inclined not to return to her area. I do have to travel an hour to game there anyway (it's the closest I've found). I was a VA at my old state. So I am trying to find a local game store and get it going nearer where I live now. If that works out I won't have to return to her area to get my 'fix'.

Sorry to necro this thread, but I just moved to a new area, and this came up recently in a scenario I was playing, and the local VC was insistent that favored enemy humanoid (human) does not work on half-Elf or half-Orc. Instead you had to take favored enemy humanoid (half-XXX) was her argument. I wanted to post here so that others could see some of the main points I tried to futility make to get her to see reason.

I tried explaining to her that it lists when you take favored enemy humanoid you have to pick a sub-type and half-XXX is not a sub-type. Half-XXX have two sub-types (as creatures can and will have more than 1 sub-type), and in this case it had sub-type human and sub-type XXX.

I tried to point out that why would they have this line in the CRB at then end of the favored enemy entry if half-XXX didn't count as both human and XXX:

CRB wrote:

If a specific creature

falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the
ranger’s bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever
bonus is higher.

Her counter-argument: that was put in there because of templates like undead templates. Which is also a bad argument, because Undead isn't a sub-type. So favored enemy humanoid (human) does not work against an enemy whose type is Undead (human) - which isn't even a thing because if you look at the Human Skeleton or Human Zombie entry in the Bestiary, they have type 'Undead', not 'Undead (human)' - even though their entry on their page is 'Human XXXXX'.

I tried to point her to the half-Elf racial trait in the CRB:

CRB wrote:
Elf Blood: Half-elves count as both elves and humans for ANY effect related to race.

(emphasis mine)

Her counter-argument: specific trumps general and this only applies to spells that target only humans or only elves. Only problem with this is the half-elf trait is specific.

I finally tried to show her this half-elf feat called Neither Elf nor Human:

ARG wrote:

Neither Elf nor Human

You have removed yourself from your heritage so thoroughly that even magic does not recognize you.

Prerequisites: Exile's Path, Seen and Unseen, character level 11th, half-elf.

Benefit: You are not considered ELVEN OR HUMAN for the purpose of harmful spells or effects based on your type, like a bane weapon or a RANGER'S FAVORED ENEMY class feature.

(again emphasis mine)

Why would they have this half-elf only feat that explicitly calls out the ranger's favored enemy and both the elven race and human if favored enemy humanoid (human) and favored enemy humanoid (elf) don't apply to half-elves?

Her last counter argument (at which point I was done trying to discuss it politely and I just shut up and waited for the evening to end and these discussions happened during breaks - I was polite and made sure to wait for the break so as to not interrupt game play) was this: she took one look at the PRD entry I was showing her on my phone and scoffed that 'the entry is from the inner sea region and has nothing to do with the pathfinder society'.

What?! Anyway, I should have known early on it was pointless to try and have a reasonable conversation with her because near the beginning one of the other players at the table said that basically the only way I'd convince her otherwise was to write it on a index card and the next time John Compton visited the area, they would ask all the rules dispute questions they had on all these index cards to him.


Seren's Seven wrote:

As I understand it reach is dependent on whether you're large due to being tall or long.

For instance a large tall creature (IE A T-rex) would have reach, but a Large long creature (like a tiger) would not. The discrepancy comes from the fact that despite this rule, creatures never have it listed what sort of large (or larger) they are so it could be up to table variation based on what your GM thinks.

Edit: Here's the link to the table for it, if that helps.

Creature Reach by Size and Shape Table Thing

I've prepped lots of monsters from all the bestiaries (except bestiary 5) and I haven't found that to be the case. If a creature is a size other than small and medium, every entry I have seen has always had a size/reach entry in the 'OFFENSE' section of the statblock.

Also, there are exceptions, but the general rule I've seen is that if the creature is a quadruped (IE, a horse) then it is a 'long' creature. You can usually tell whether a creature is a quadruped just by looking at it's picture or if it has an entry in its CMD like ({Base CMD}+4 vs. trip}) - IE, if the base CMD is 20, it will have an entry like CMD 20 (24 vs. trip). You also need to verify it does have Improved Trip & Greater Trip feats (as that can get you to +4 vs. trip as well).

Shamira wrote:

That's a difficult one.

For most animal companions you can see if they have reach by looking at the animal they are derived from.

The Deinonychus will never get reach as it comes in small (level 1-6) or medium (level 7+)

The Tyrannosaurus has space/reach 20/20 so the animal companion at large should be 10/10.

The only discrepancy in this system is the elephant/mastodon as far as I know, which has both 15/10 (elephant) and 15/15 (mastodon).

Edit: keep in mind however that stand still does not work on reach, as the feat specifically mentions adjacent squares (and you need to make sure the companion has int 3+ ofcourse :))

^ I only see a minor discrepancy. You can choose to have an Elephant animal companion, or you can have a Mastodon animal companion. If you choose Elephant, then at 7th lvl+ it doesn't get reach. The minor discrepancy is that the Mastodon should have it's space/reach entry as:

Space 15 ft.; Reach 10 ft. (15 ft. with gore)

So then, at 7th lvl+, your Mastodon should have:

Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft. (10 ft. with gore)

^ to understand my reasoning, you just have to read the 2nd line in the description of the Mastodon entry:

Bestiary 1 wrote:
The great mastodons are primeval cousins of elephants. Their large tusks dwarf those of regular elephants, jutting outward and then curving back toward one another at the tips.

Emphasis mine, but the text seems pretty clear to me why the Mastodon has Reach 15 ft., but the Elephant entry on the same page only has Reach 10 ft.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thought I throw my two cents in here:

I'm a VA for one of the several stores in the Phoenix Valley. I generally don't run a scenario twice, but that is only because I schedule what scenarios are ran at the store I'm in charge of, and if I haven't ran it yet, then most of my player base hasn't played it yet. I have found that I am GMing far more often than I get to play.

There are, however, times that I do run a scenario more than once. For instance, sometimes I GM something at another store to help out and to make sure the table goes off. Or for instance, I recently scheduled Shades of Ice parts 1 thru 3 at my store. I ran all 3 at a different store a couple years back when I first started GMing (and was not a VA). It'd be nice to get credit again - but it isn't going to prevent me running it my store so my playerbase has a chance to play it.

There is one time of year where I do consistently re-run scenarios: Phoenix Comicon. Our VC sets it up so other than the special, you are usually running the same scenario 2 or 3 times. First, you don't have to worry about prepping a different scenario each day. Second, most of the scenarios scheduled are primarily for attracting new players, meaning tier 1-2 and 1-5 scenarios. Yes we do schedule some higher level scenarios for our veterans, but that's only a small fraction of what we schedule.

Pros/Cons of this: You don't get multiple credit (other than multiple table credit), but it's easier this way in my opinion. Another con is that we might be losing out on some people volunteering for the con because they can't get GM credit more than once - it is offset a little in the fact that as long as you GM 3 sessions over the 4 day con, you get 2 full event passes to PCC.

Anyway, I'm in favor of unlimited limited GM credit. By that I mean, you can get a GM chronicle an unlimited number times, but it is limited in the boons, where you can own get a boon once via GM credit. Now that's per boon - meaning if a chronicle has something like 'Boon (Liberty's Edge)', 'Other Boon (The Exchange)', and 'Third General Boon any faction can earn', then you could GM it once and apply to a Liberty's Edge character, but if you GMed it again, you couldn't get the Liberty's Edge boon, but you could get the Exchange boon.

You could take this a step further and limit it to also unique items that are on chronicles, but limit it to when the item is purchased. For example, if I run a scenario and apply it to my -1, and the chronicle has a unique item, and then I run it again on my -2, and I buy the unique item on my -2, then I need to cross off the item on my -1 chronicle as well.

Another limit past the unique items could also be Limit X items. For instance, a scenario I recently got to play had some +1 holy arrows (Limit 3 or 4 - I'd have to look at the Chronicle to be sure). Make items like that be global GM Limit X. Meaning it doesn't matter how many times I've GMed, I can only buy 4x +1 holy arrows across all characters that have GM credit for that scenario (and I can buy an additional 4x +1 holy arrows on the character that actually played the scenario).

Of course this would rely on the honor system as I don't see a way to really enforce that. Sorry if I'm rambling. Just my 2 cents on it.

There's also ectoplasmic bombs from the Undead Slayer's Handbook (Player Companion) that allows you to do full damage to Incorporeals.

There is also the Crypt Breaker archetype from Inner Sea Magic that has special bombs just for hitting undead/constructs.


Jordan Agudelo wrote:
The problem I see is this is not seen in chapter 6 for modules and adventure paths of the society guild guide. If it is I missed it. And one could argue that adventure paths and modules are not part of the Society Campaign, because they are not scenarios.

I just read that section and I don't see the problem unless you play pregens.

First, it does call them adventures:


Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Modules may

be played as part of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play
campaign for credit. These adventures are produced for
a wider audience than just Pathfinder Society Organized
Play, and are thus structured differently than scenarios.

Second, you can play your PFS character (and not a pregen, but the actual character) in the entirety of a module:


Because of the differences in format and scope modules

and Adventure Paths present, only portions of them are
sanctioned for Pathfinder Society credit. Pathfinder
Modules are sanctioned in their entirety, and characters
who play through the entire 32-page adventure earn
a Chronicle sheet.

Adventure Paths are where I see get a little wonky. You could play your PFS character through the sanctioned only portions - and if you did so, I don't see why you can't get a day job:


Because of the length and scope of Pathfinder

Adventure Paths, only specific portions of these
adventures are sanctioned for Pathfinder Society credit.
Details on running the sanctioned content from each
volume of an Adventure Path can be found along with
the adventure’s Chronicle sheet(s). In general, a single
dungeon complex or adventuring location is sanctioned
from each Adventure Path volume, though some variation
from this may arise from time to time.

However, if you are playing the entire adventure path, you can't get a day job, because you are playing as though you played a pregen. You still get a chronicle and can apply to a PFS character, but because you played a pregen, no day job:


Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder

Adventure Path with an ongoing group undertaking the
entire, six-book campaign, you may receive credit for
playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you
had played a pregenerated character.


The guide to organized play says:


Not every Pathfinder works for the Society full time. Some

are trained artisans, professionals, or performers and
earn extra gold on the side, between missions. After each
adventure that grants XP, you gain a period of Downtime
before your next mission. During Downtime, you can
attempt a trained Craft, Perform, or Profession check to
see how much extra money you earn—this is called a Day
Job check. At the end of each adventure in the Pathfinder
Society campaign, you have the opportunity to make one
Day Job check.

I could be wrong, but a module grants XP and is an 'adventure'...

I personally switch targets or tactics if I miss a PC - for instance, I'm playing an alchemist in a home game, and I totally whiffed with my bomb on this gray ooze. I was like 'this thing is clearly made of rubber as my bomb just bounced off, I should see if a bolt from my crossbow would fair better.' - next turn pulled out the crossbow and hit the thing.

On my ranger in PFS, I'll unload a full-round/rapid shot one opponent, and if all my attacks (or most of them) miss regardless of what my actual attack rolls are, I'll switch targets (if there is more than one), and then circle back to the one I missed eventually (if still up later).

As to GMing, if the it is an unintelligent creature, I generally attack the nearest PC. If there is more one in reach, then I roll randomly determine who to hit. If the creature has been attacked in the past round, I attack whoever it. If it was hit by more than 1 PC in range in the last round, then I attack whoever did the most damage. I don't have them 'ignore' the impossible to hit enemy, but I also don't have them just sit there and ineffectually hit the high AC tank - especially if the tank hasn't hit them.

As to intelligent NPCs, all bets are off - they can recognize types of armor (unless you have some kind of illusion going masking your armor) and other perceived threats (casters/ranged/high damage dealers).


I'm running this Sunday. In the first encounter, the thugs (both low tier and high tier) has this tactic:

Before Combat If combat looks imminent, the scouts hiding in the trees drink their potions of feather fall.
During Combat The scouts concentrate ranged fire on flatfooted PCs during the first few rounds of combat. If no flat-footed targets remain, they switch to their short swords and move to flank the PCs.

^ Since this is a potion, it is caster level 1, which means the effects of the potion will last for 1 round. It seems to me the tactics of the thugs is to snipe from the safety of the trees, and the authors intent is either 1) to prevent them from being knocked out of the trees and taking falling damage, or 2) the tactics is to take a single shot from the trees and then have a quick way of getting down to then close in with melee. But that doesn't seem to work with the potions - regardless of either tactic for the most part (unless I'm missing something). Oh and the thugs are supposed to be stealthed/hiding in the trees in hopes of getting a surprise round. For example:

Intent #1, completely fails unless they get knocked out of the trees as soon as combat starts.

Intent #2: They get a surprise round. Step 1. Just before the surprise round, they drink their potion. Step 2. Surprise round: fire arrows at flat-footed people. End Surprise Round. Potion wears off. Potion wasted. I guess they could technically take a 5 foot step out of the tree and start falling at that point. That might work-ish.

Or let's say they don't get a surprise round. Drinking the potion is a standard action - so either they fire, or they drink the potion. Or they fire, don't move, and then next turn drink the potion and then jump out of the tree.

Course what happens if they think combat is imminent and then 6 seconds goes by? Wasted a potion.

Anyway, I guess my point is, the potions seem pointless. Or am I missing something? How have others ran this?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apparently you updated the PRD recently (which is great!), however you decided to altered URLs of the pages (which is fine), but you didn't do proper redirects. For instance, I used to frequent the monster creation page to look up XP based on CR (as I don't have the table memorized), and I visit it so often, all I have to do is type in 'mo' in my browser address bar and it's one of the websites listed.

The original address was http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html, but the new address is http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monsterCreation.html#appendix-1 -monster-creation.

If I go to the original address I get a dead page. Proper design dictates that I should have been auto-redirected to the new page address. Also by not doing redirects, you search engine rankings on pages is all messed up now. For instance, if I search for 'paizo monster creation', the top result in Google is the old web page. If you do proper redirects, not only do you not lose your search engine rankings, but the search engines will pick up on the address being changed and start pointing to the new address automatically.

Depending on how you structured the page naming convention, you can get away with doing wildcard redirects. For instance, if all of your pages ins the 'monsters' folder have been redirected to the 'bestiary' folder, you can do a redirect for that entire folder.

Aelryinth wrote:

As for whether the new definition for DR Epic in Mythic replaces the one in the bestiary...I don't know, do updated and reprinted rules replace older ones where you come from? If they don't, use the old one from 3.5. Or, you could use the new Paizo one. It's your call. Sometimes things are real inconsistent. It's like trying to figure the CR of character classes.


I own Mythic Adventures and all the Bestiaries. I read the DR/Epic entry in Mythic Adventures on page 7. It seems pretty clear to me that the entry is an addition, not a replacement, and meant to give a way for players (not monsters) to overcome DR/Epic without having to rely on the GM being nice giving them a +6 weapon as loot (cause as far as I know, a player can't craft - or have crafted - a +6 weapon) - carrying a ridiculous variety of +4 bane X weapons to overcome DR/Epic.

Here's my personal take on how it works: So the golem, since it has DR/Epic can overcome DR/Epic with its slam attacks. This means that its slam attacks count as having a straight +6 enhancement for overcoming DR/Epic.

Now the reason I qualified that as straight is because the golem's slam attack doesn't have any energy or or other weapon enchantment going on. IE, it's damage entry isn't "6d10+13 and 1d6 fire". You could argue that it is a +4 or +5 because it has a crit range (keen = +1 enchantment), but I don't know of any particular weapon enchantment that also gives you a free sunder anytime you crit (course I don't own all of the rulebooks, so there might be one).

Course that is all just my personal take on it. In the end, does it matter all that much if it has DR/addy? If it rolled all ones, that's still a base damage of 19. It's going to beat most DR/hardness out just with poor rolls - and based on 'average die results (5.5 for a d10)', it should be averaging 46 damage per slam.

Abraham spalding wrote:
I've always read that as a continuation of the previous sentence and that the reduced ac only applies to creatures that make their save to disbelieve.

That makes sense. Just wish the wording was a tiny bit more explicit.


Terminalmancer wrote:

Based on my experience running the scenario, the AC (and the DCs and saves and any other characteristics mentioned) needs to be the number listed for the subtier regardless of whether the illusion has been disbelieved or not, because otherwise those suckers would be simply too lethal. Any logic you apply to the AC would seem to also apply to saves and ability DCs as well.

The difference between 18 HP or 92 HP won't matter much if you're throwing an otherwise-CR-9 night hag at the party!

While this is referred to as a shadow conjuration, it does absolutely follow some unique rules to keep you from killing off your players. So follow the text wherever possible and if you've got questions about how things interact, then try to use the shadow conjuration rules to resolve those.

Regarding the specifics of applying the AC change, I interpret the text as referring to a cap on any particular AC category. So your latter example on item #2 is what I went with. I did not scale other AC values proportionally lower.

Yeah this scenario is feeling like a reversal of the save or suck - where instead of a PC wrecking an encounter with their save or suck build, its the scenario wrecking the PCs with a save or suck encounter.


Prepping for a session this coming Saturday. Trying to wrap my head around the shadow conjuration. The sidebar says:

"their AC falls to 14 (AC 17 in Subtier 4–5)"

I've been comparing this to the actual shadow conjuration text in the CRB as well. From the looks of it, the sidebar has some 'special' rules because these creatures wouldn't normally be eligible as summoned monsters.

So some questions on the AC:

1) Is the drop in AC constant? IE, if the PC has not made the will save successfully yet, is the monster's AC the original or 14? For example, the green hag's AC is 19 normally. So is it 19 against PCs who believe it is real, or is 14 regardless?

2) I'm assuming the AC only goes down (falls) and not up. By that, I mean, the green hag has: AC 19, touch 11, flat-footed 18. I'm assuming that the AC doesn't become: AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 14. My guess is that it is: AC 14, touch 11, flat-footed 14.

3) Related to 2), is the AC scaled: should the green hag's AC be: AC 14, touch 6, flat-footed 13?

4) Is it a flat 14 (17 on high tier) for all shadow conjured monsters or should 14 be the maximum? The CRB entry says the monster gets 1/5th the original AC bonuses. The green hag's AC bonuses is +1 Dex, +8 natural. So per the CRB, the green hag's AC would be: AC 11, touch 10, flat-footed 11 (+1 natural), and not the flat AC 14. Of course, again it seems that the sidebar is overriding some of the shadow conjuration rules from the CRB.

Link to the PRD: Shadow Conjuration

My question is on the AC of the summoned shadow monster: is the AC only nerfed if the enemy makes their will save? Or is always nerfed?

Here's some relevant bits of text:

PRD wrote:
Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow conjuration's level (4th) rather than the spell's normal level.

^ That's in the 3rd paragraph and it is explicit about saving throws - I've read elsewhere that this applies to the summoned monster's special abilities/spells/SLAs. Not sure if that is correct via RAW - I would think the text applies to any saving throws the monster can make the enemy make.

The 4th paragraph covers HP, attacks, and AC bonuses:

PRD wrote:
A shadow creature has one-fifth the hit points of a normal creature of its kind (regardless of whether it's recognized as shadowy). It deals normal damage and has all normal abilities and weaknesses. Against a creature that recognizes it as a shadow creature, however, the shadow creature's damage is one-fifth (20%) normal, and all special abilities that do not deal lethal damage are only 20% likely to work. (Roll for each use and each affected character separately.) Furthermore, the shadow creature's AC bonuses are just one-fifth as large.

^ again, HP is explicit that it doesn't matter if the enemy made their save. Damage is explicit on that it does full damage if they haven't made their save, and only 20% if they have. But AC is not explicit in either direction.

So is the summoned monster have it's full AC against creatures that have not made the save? Or is it nerfed regardless of whether the enemy made the save?

Jack of Dust wrote:
Sure, but they aren't going to wait for the intruder to level up either. The townspeople only deciding to forge better locks at the precise time the thief gets much better at disabling them is still blatant plot convenience. Apart from that issue, it's a good way to show that the thief had an impact on the world around them.

I wasn't suggesting that the particular DC automatically jump up because the player leveled. I was suggesting it scale up the more the player uses the skill, and their infamy grows. The scaling could happen before they even level again, or could scale half way through their next level, or even scale a couple levels later - so even though the town started getting better locks, the thief has gotten better at his craft so even the new & improved locks are still meaningless to him at that.

And yes it would be an indication that the thief was having an impact on the world around them - and if I was playing that thief, I would think that is the coolest thing ever - I wouldn't mind in the slightest that the GM has gradually scaled the difficulty up. In my mind my character would be all that more epic that he is having that effect on the world around versus where the GM just starts hand waving whatever my character is good at because the CR can't scale to auto-success I've managed to achieve.

Edit: it's like the 2-01 Before the Dawn Part 1 - The Bloodcove Disguise scenario:

As the PCs progress through the town doing various things they gradually gain more awareness from the Aspis operating in the area and start receiving cumulative penalties to various skill checks.

There is other scenarios (can't remember off the top of my head) where certain mechanics scale to higher and higher DCs the more the PCs attempt those checks.

wraithstrike wrote:

That is a bad anology. The game is not a town, and the game has rule for DC's.

I was going to say a better comparison would be a BBEG(end of game) who notices all of his traps are being bypassed and decides to increase his traps lethality in the HQ of his lieutenants.
However, the game already handles that by making things more difficult as you progress(level up).

It also fails because whether the party succeeds the traps by a value of +1 to +35 the BBEG doesn't know that. He only knows the traps are being defeated. So as far as the in-game rational there isn't one.

PS: Even that town example doesn't work. The townspeople don't know the skill of the person breaking in, nor how easily he bypassed the locks so they have no way of knowing how much to raise the ability of their locks to keep people out.

Really the best thing to do is talk to the player about what type of game you both...

Actually it isn't a bad analogy. They don't need to know how easily the locks were bypassed - the only thing they need to know is that the lock was defeated - therefore they get a better lock than the previous one. When that one is defeated, they get an even better one - and so on. Basically as the player's skill grow, so does the renown of some unknown burglar who defeats any lock - as that renown grows, so does the lock making business. The scaling in this case reactive - not automatic.

If my house was broken in, I would up security. I probably would have no idea how easily the thief broke in, but that isn't going to stop me from getting strong doors, better locks, and better windows.

As to the BBEG of a dungeon - I'm sure as you clear one dungeon after the next, the renown of your party will grow, word will spread, and BBEGs of their respective dungeons will scale up their security - and as each tougher and tougher BBEG gets dropped, the renown of the group grows. There is nothing wrong with a campaign world re-actively scaling due to growing renown of legendary characters.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
The Sword wrote:
I also go for the ball not the player. I've never banned someone from one of my games, you mention that not me.

Actually, you mentioned that.

The Sword wrote:
I would say to the player that their burning desire to make traps irrelevant with abnormally high perception checks is making me not want to include them in the game.

I'm not sure that you meant it to be taken that way, but it would sound like a threat to me, no matter how calmly delivered it was.

I've been reading through this thread (there's been a lot added to it since I last peeked in), and I have to ask, if you aren't advocating adjusting percentages to meet player capabilities, what are you advocating? It seems like you are saying that you are telling players you don't like them to be too good at any one thing, and that if they want to do that, you do "not want to include them in the game."
I get that you don't see that as the same action, and I can agree with that distinction (one involves a conversation with the player, one involves DM fiat behind the scenes) but both boil down to the DM, either on the character sheet or with the dice roll, not wanting to reward that kind of character build.
I'm not sure I could agree with that kind of DM, and as a player I would be very disappointed.

I like to play this one old RPG game on my computer once in a while that has it set so that 100% success rate is never guaranteed - you can achieve 99% or in some cases 99.9% cases. I'm perfectly fine with that. I can either have my character attempt to achieve that 99% (and suck in other areas) or not, but no matter how I progress there is no auto-succeed and I like that.

The GM in question could discuss with the players of modifying the rules slightly so that a nat 1 on a skill check where failure can have penalties (such as setting off a trap) then requires a percentile roll. Then for the percentile something like:

% DC = MAX((Original skill DC - 1 for each skill rank/feat/trait/statmod), 1) / Players Skill Modifier.

MAX = whichever is higher, in this case basically number can't drop below 1.

So for instance, a trap with a DC 20:
15 ranks
10 alertness and skill focus
4 wisdom
2 half-elf keen senses
5 eyes of the eagle item
1 seeker trait

MAX((20 - (15 skill ranks + 2 feats + 3 traits? + 4 wis mod)), 1) = 1 / 40 = 2.5% (so either round up or down), but then basically, the player only fails if:

Rolls a 1 nat, then rolls either a 00+1, 00+2, or 00+3 on the percentile dice. That's probably less than 1% chance of failure there - cause a nat 1 is a 5% chance, followed by a 3% chance of failing the 2nd roll. So then his mighty +40 investment isn't meaningless, but there is always a minute chance of failure.

The argument isn't that he shouldn't be rewarded for his feat investment, it's that it shouldn't be allowed to hit the point where there is absolutely no risk ever failing. Even in a fantasy world, the greatest/best/whatever entity at skill X can still be ever so slightly under the weather and totally whiff on something. Even as annoying as save or suck builds can be, with saving throws, there is still a chance that the spell caster's plan doesn't work if the monsters roll nat 20s (course round 2 they try again with a different save or suck spell/ability).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Terquem wrote:
So wait a minute. Are some of you saying that if the DC is, say, 17, and your character ha a +4 on the roll, AND you decide those odds are not to your liking, you will invest in a character improvement that raises your modifier by +2, and when you have done that you fully expect that from that point on the DC should never increase, making the investment you made worth while?
Sort of. The DC for the same task should never increase just to match then new abilities of the character. Also, the DC for the average lock in the town should not suddenly become higher just to spite the character. Sure DCs should be higher if the character goes after bigger challenges, but the world should not randomly get harder just because the character got better.

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with that. If a town is having routine break-ins, the towns people aren't going to be like 'oh well' and keep using the same mundane locks - they're going to invest in better and better locks, traps, security, and neighborhood watches and so on.

Terquem wrote:
B.O.B.Johnson wrote:
Terquem wrote:

I though that if there was a consequence to failure then you were not permitted, by the rules, to take 10 or 20, on a Disable Device Skill Check.

Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you roll a d20 enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Yes, but skill checks are not auto-failures. Meaning if you skill bonus is so high that even with a nat 1 you beat the trap perception DC or disable device, you find it and disable it.
well yeah, that makes sense, so if I created a dungeon of traps so that your character has to always roll something between a 7 and a 14 for success, cause I think that is a challenge, but you want to have a rogue who doesn't have to roll at all because even a 1 will always succeed, we should have talked about this before we stated playing, cause one of us isn't going to have as much fun as we wanted to.

That's the kind of table I like to run and play at it. I'm not a huge console/PC gamer, but I try to beat whatever game I'm playing without cheating at least the first time through. I might go back through and enable a god mode (if there is one) so I can explore everything - but that still gets boring quickly cause there is absolutely no challenge at that point.

The problem with a lot of power gamers in social games like this is that they want to play a character with god mode turned on, and while that might be exceptionally fun for them and okay for them to do at home on their 1 player game, it isn't even remotely fun for anyone else. They're not the only player at the table - and if your fun/enjoyment is derived from making sure no one else has fun, then your a psychopath and need to be committed involuntarily to a mental facility.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
is there any point to the rest of the party in that situation? When save or suck is automatic. Is there any point to having a DM? Why not just go read the AP book and act it out in your head?

Exactly! When I GM I am there to have fun just as much as the players - I view it as though I'm a player too (even though I'm running the game). While I may be running the monsters I'm doing this not only so the players have fun, but so I can have some fun too. I'm also not their to beat the players - I'm there to weave a fun story.

If you regulate the story down to save or suck I'm not going to run for you, because what kind of story is that?

I've also played PFS tables with this one player who ONLY built save or suck characters - and basically the sessions I played with him basically went like this: if I beat him in initiative order, YAY! I GET TO DO SOMETHING! Otherwise it was: oh its his turn, combats over, lets move on. After a couple sessions like that (and with him playing different characters) I would just wait and see what he signed up to play, and if the other scenario was something I was eligible to play, I'd play that - otherwise I wouldn't play.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

I though that if there was a consequence to failure then you were not permitted, by the rules, to take 10 or 20, on a Disable Device Skill Check.

Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you roll a d20 enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Yes, but skill checks are not auto-failures. Meaning if you skill bonus is so high that even with a nat 1 you beat the trap perception DC or disable device, you find it and disable it.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I'd like to be able to 'try out' a Magus, an Alchemist, or a Cavalier without having to *build* the darn thing first and make a ton of mistakes on it.

That may make me weird, but having a solid viable character I can 'plug and play' when I'm trying things out is kind of neat?

That being said, I'm sure it'll come up someday, just need to hang on until then.

I don't know where you can find the Magus, but for the Alchemist AND the Cavalier, play the Master of the Fallen Fortress. It's even tier 1, so you can play it twice. Or you could even play it 6 times total and also play an Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, or Witch.

Edit: Note these 6 lvl 1 pregens are only legal in that module for PFS. Technically if you have a GM that would be willing you can use those pregens outside of that module for non-PFS credit.


Verzen wrote:

Can PFS adopt the partial BAB rules? They just make more sense to do things that way. If I want a sorc 1, rogue 1, arcanist 1, wizard 1, I should have a BAB of 2. It makes multiclassing more fluid imo.


Additional Resources wrote:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained

The following parts of Pathfinder Unchained are legal for play:

Classes: all classes on pages 8-39 are legal for play; Skill Unlocks: the skill unlocks and Signature Skill feat are only available through the rogue's edge class ability.

Partial BAB starts on pg 40. Notice that legality ends at pg 39. Skill Unlocks start on pg 82.


Tamec wrote:
In what book is this printed?

Unchained - pg 40. Fractional Base Bonuses.

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>