I would love to understand what the AP KM creator's intentions were with how powerful the masks were intended to be after creation at the Masking Ceremony in Tireless Hall Chapter 2 of SOT, KM. Was it the creative team's intention to allow adventurers to pick from the Magical masks in the Adventure toolbox on page 73, and if so what levels?
Was it the author's intention to have the masks remain unmagical unless students transferred stuff from other masks that were found, to leave it wide open to GMs to grow the masks in power as the students grow, or to use the relic system in the Gamemastery Guide?
As a new GM, I would be more comfortable with a little more guidance on intent.
I'm running this myself and played a Magaambyan Arcanist in Wrath of the Righteous who (well before this came out) carved his own mask and made it a mythic item (so imbued powers) I kind of intend for them to be able to power it similarly to that masks progression (and what I invested into it) It started as a basic wooden mask my character carved, with some investment it became an Aspect Mask (which I think is a pretty decent baseline here), then I made it into a Legendary Item (from Mythic rules) and eventually a Greater Artifact, but mind you I had to invest Mythic feats to make it that powerful. I haven't fully fleshed out how I would let them do that in this campaign as we're still getting to the masks, but it's rattling around in my head as an option. If no one is really interested in becoming their masks persona I think an Aspect Mask is fine as a start and end
Have played, run, or both
3-99 Blood under Absalom
4-99 Race for the Runecarved Key
5-S Siege of the Diamond City
6-00 Legacy of the Stonelords
6-97 Siege of Serpents
7-00 The Sky Key Solution
8-00 The Cosmic Captive
9-00 Assault on Absalom
Haven't done
10-00 The Hao Jin Cataclysm
10-98 Siege of Gallowspire
6-97 seems to be getting a lot of votes and it was pretty decent from memory. Have personally good memories from Blood Under Absalom and Siege of the Diamond City
To add a bit more, our lodge was blessed by an amazing VC. Who's now a Campaign Coin holder (IMHO should have been well before he became one), contributor, and working with a 3rd party publisher, in Mike Bramnik. He was the the glue that held the lodge GMs and players alike, and has made the experience hard to replace after having left.
As a former VO who took a break from all things TTRPG due to life, and recently came back. For me the key to getting and keeping GMs for society play was removal of barriers to entry. With that in mind I'll list what I perceive to be some of the major boundaries and how we were able to help.
1. Rules knowledge - We ran GM 101/201 course (we designed) every 6 months or so, also generally encouraged people to try even if they don't know the rules, between player knowledge and AoN usually you can make a ruling on the spot, if you're unconfortable contact one of the VOs tyope conversation.
2. Cost. Honestly GMing is more costly than playing, scenarios, mini's, maps, etc. We had a $2 play fee that got pooled to buy minis, maps, scenarios, etc that could be borrowed for the game. (This was back in the day of retail program, where the store got all scenarios too). Genuinely, allowing access to scenarios instead of making people spend $5 anytime they wanted to GM something new is hugely advantageous. Probably the thing I miss most about being a VO is scenario accessibility. I know sharing scenarios is frowned upon, but honestly I spent more on other supporting products when I got the scenarios for free, and think if there is a way to do it within the rules it's worth exploring. The $2 a week, which eventually went to retail incentive, but meant GMs didn't necessarily have to buy maps and minis was a huge boon too. Now playing in a new area I wonder if I would have ever started GMing without the resources we had.
3. Consistency. Moving locations/dates may be needed due to whatever space you have, but the more consistent the better, it generally gets a number of the same people/characters interested, thus letting the GM feel comfortable with the people as well. Not everyone feels comfortable showing up and running a game for random people.
4. Conventions. Not really a barrier, but the interactive specials can be a big draw both for players and GMs. First special I played in, was the one that made want to GM society. While big cons are fun, it's relatively easy to run a small con and be able to do a special, as well as get con support. 15 tables over 3 days isn't that hard if planned for.
5. Recognition/Burnout. A lot of the GMs I know get stuck being the forever GM, and while most love it sometimes they want to play. We would honestly have conversations with people if they had been GMing a lot to see if they wanted breaks. Also, any star, glyph, nova a GM received was posted to our group page and given a certificate. (5ish years later I still have mine) It was small but it made a difference.
Edit: Looking through earlier replies and it makes me smile to see some of the same people still involved (or even more involved), with more or less the same answer as years ago. Specifically, that Painlord post and PirateRob were a lot of how we attempted to run our lodge.
Player Name: BartonOliver
Character Name: Locke Hume
Faction: Vigilant Seal
Downtime Use: Crafting (cooking)
Notes I need to know: Originally created as an empiricist investigator, likely to change to forensic medicine to get rid of that's odd. First level, 1 scenario played
Anyhow, keep any questions coming, we still have three weeks to go!
Since, you've already picked a couple players that likely fill the role I built out, is it okay if I rework the character I applied with. Probably some major mechanical changes, but not as much fluff wise
Would anyone care to crunch the numbers for something like a dagger? I'm curious to see if the "extra dice for an action" version beats "-1/+2" for even the tiniest weapon dice.
In PF1e I've played martial characters who used daggers because, as we all know, eventually the actual damage dice barely matter to your output, and it was the style I wanted.
I've been playing with numbers for a while, and what I came up with is bigger weapons are better in the new system especially if you factor in DR. That said we don't know when the die bump for power attack happens or exactly what monster DR will look like (or if it even exists). But there is far more limited benefit to Power attacking with a 1d4 weapon when the damage die multiplies versus a 2d6 (or 1d12)
Examples:
Example: Fighter +26 to hit +16 damage one handing a longsword AC 30 creature no DR
Full Attack 1*die - 36.9 EDV
Full Attack 2*die - 41.11 EDV
Same fighter with a knife vs. AC 30 no DR
Full Attack (1*die) - 31.84
Full Attack (2*die) - 34.18
And that's only the difference between a d4 and a d8. (It gets more significant if you look at the difference between say a dagger and a great sword or add in DR for the creature)
So, first I will say we obviously don't have full information to compare so I'm making assumptions here.
...
I don't think anything I've built is by any means an edge case or particularly out there.
Fully agreeing with you on the caveat that you don't have full information right now. Notwithstanding that two-handing a longsword is not a particularly common longsword build and a bit of a cherrypick compared to one-handed longsword or two-handed greatsword, your numbers fit right in with thflame's: He said that PF1 Power Attack is better if you are fighting something where your bonus is high enough to hit on a 1 before the Power Attack on the first attack, which is what we have in your example. With my insight from playing and running playtests, that's not going to be a super common situation, though I have certainly seen it happen in PF2 several times.
That's a pretty common to hit bonus for a 12th level fighter (I certainly could have powered it up more), and a mook that he should be encountering fairly regularly in PF1 for stats. I'm not trying to make any crazy arguments (and I've certainly seen plenty of two handed longswords used), but if you prefer
+26 to hit (+12 BAB, +7 STR (17 starting, 3 from leveling, +4 belt - 24 str), +3 sword at level 12 (about 1/6 average wealth for your weapon as a fighter is reasonable), +2 from weapon training, +2 from 2 feats)
One Handed Longsword EDVs
Full Attack PF1 - 51.73
Full Attack (one die) - 43.04
Full Attack (two die) - 47.74
Oddly one handing you fall behind over two handing (not accounting for actions to raise shields and such)
Two Handed Greatsword
Full Attack PF1 - 73.15
Full Attack (1*die) 53.05
Full Attack Greatsword (two*die) 60.36
Or we could go to 2 handed longsword versus a boss/mini boss type (CR+3, AC 30)
Full Attack PF1 - 46.86
Full Attack (1*die) - 41.69
Full Attack (2*die) - 45.9
Full Attack PF1/PF2 (no power attack) - 46.53
So how bout 1 handed longsword against AC 30
Full Attack PF1 - 37.62
Full Attack 1*die - 36.9
Full Attack 2*die - 41.11
Full Attack PF1/PF2 (no power attack) - 40.59
2 Handed Greatsword
Full Attack PF1 - 50.16
Full Attack 1*die - 48.02
Full Attack 2*die - 54.56
Full Attack PF1/PF2 (no power attack) - 51.48
Like I said, I don't think it can be definitively called better or worse Power Attack is/was situational as is and there are seemingly pros and cons to each version
So power attack Is a lot worse now? Since going from a flat +2/+3 somewhat scalable damage to a single random damage die amount?
Power Attack gives you one (and actually, eventually two without taking another feat to improve it!) extra damage die and does not penalize you on accuracy; and you don't want a penalty on accuracy. For a d12 two-handed weapon that might have gotten +3 damage (+3 more every 4 BAB) in PF1, that's 6.5 damage on average, going up to 13. It wasn't until BAB 16 that you would do more damage than that in PF1, and that was at a cost of -5 accuracy.
Maybe, but that also discounts the iterative attacks versus single attack. At a glance I'm gonna say it's more complicated than either side it willing to admit right now.
Actually, theflame fixed the bug in his code (it actually was counting all misses that weren't critical failures as hits, which is a pretty big issue from a pretty small line of code). He posted his findings here.
That's cool, except I didn't use his coding at all. I did a pure EDV calc and I showed it's results just below below where you quoted me. His way is fine for a comparison, but not a very good case using a traditionally rare die (d12 - yes I know that was your example as well) and not accounting well for statics which may be further discounted in PF2 but are incredibly important in PF1. A 12th level fighter with 1d12 + 4 is not a fitting case. I don't find it reasonable to say for sure that the new Power Attack is better, it has advantages certainly but it also has drawbacks (from what we can see so far). I by no means am making any final determination, but I don't think it is simply better or simply worse right now.
Edit: Also, we both know by using a d12 for comparison you're choosing the best case scenario (basic weapon) for the new system. I chose an absolutely average weapon to show a middle of the line case. If you take the comparison instead with a say a heavy shield (1d4 at medium) the new power attack looks worse than either set of comparisons.
So, first I will say we obviously don't have full information to compare so I'm making assumptions here. If I build a generic fighter level 12, 24 STR, a +3 longsword (let's be honest here, the longsword not a d12 weapon is the iconic weapon that is most likely to show up in a printed adventure), was Weapon Training 2, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec - all for longsword.
I'm going to assume all of that translates reasonable well to PF2 given what's above. He will be two hand attacking in all math
That gives me a fighter with +26/+21/+16 (1d8+19) 19-20x2
So let's breakdown the math from there. (All attacks versus AC 27 - average AC according to Monster Generation Tables for a CR 12 creature)
PF1 Fighter (power attack penalties and additional damage accounted for)
Single Attack (power attacking)- 31.24 EDV
Full Attack (power attacking) - 64.43 EDV
PF2 Fighter (single die at this point, since I don't know where the breakpoint is)
Single Power Attack - 29.26 EDV (taking 2 actions)
Full Attack (not sure this is possible, but if I use the extra action I have left to attack as well) - 44.77 EDV
PF2 Fighter (2 extra die)
Single Attack 33.96 EDV
Full Attack - 52.47 EDV.
I don't think anything I've built is by any means an edge case or particularly out there.
So power attack Is a lot worse now? Since going from a flat +2/+3 somewhat scalable damage to a single random damage die amount?
Power Attack gives you one (and actually, eventually two without taking another feat to improve it!) extra damage die and does not penalize you on accuracy; and you don't want a penalty on accuracy. For a d12 two-handed weapon that might have gotten +3 damage (+3 more every 4 BAB) in PF1, that's 6.5 damage on average, going up to 13. It wasn't until BAB 16 that you would do more damage than that in PF1, and that was at a cost of -5 accuracy.
Maybe, but that also discounts the iterative attacks versus single attack. At a glance I'm gonna say it's more complicated than either side it willing to admit right now. No accuracy penalty is huge. The EDV increase is great. Extra dice are traditionally bad however compared to static modifiers. That said we as readers (versus you as staff) don't know exactly what equipment looks like/other interactions that come into the evaluation.
So, first I will say we obviously don't have full information to compare so I'm making assumptions here. If I build a generic fighter level 12, 24 STR, a +3 longsword (let's be honest here, the longsword not a d12 weapon is the iconic weapon that is most likely to show up in a printed adventure), was Weapon Training 2, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec - all for longsword.
I'm going to assume all of that translates reasonable well to PF2 given what's above. He will be two hand attacking in all math
That gives me a fighter with +26/+21/+16 (1d8+19) 19-20x2
So let's breakdown the math from there. (All attacks versus AC 27 - average AC according to Monster Generation Tables for a CR 12 creature)
PF1 Fighter (power attack penalties and additional damage accounted for)
Single Attack (power attacking)- 31.24 EDV
Full Attack (power attacking) - 64.43 EDV
PF2 Fighter (single die at this point, since I don't know where the breakpoint is)
Single Power Attack - 29.26 EDV (taking 2 actions)
Full Attack (not sure this is possible, but if I use the extra action I have left to attack as well) - 44.77 EDV
PF2 Fighter (2 extra die)
Single Attack 33.96 EDV
Full Attack - 52.47 EDV.
So maybe the new full attack is better, I can't prove it using an "average" fighter comparison, but I don't have nearly enough information. I will say it ended up closer than I thought it might, but it looks like it could easily be a downgrade from the Power Attack we have now. Of course as we see more monsters, equipment, actual feats etc. the comparison points could be more favorable to the new Power Attack, we just don't know yet.
1. Scroll Scholar (Pathfinder Society Field Guide) - changes both Wizard and Cleric, give up some secondary abilities for a lot of flavor and great powers later. Played through Reign of Winter with it on Cleric, only archetype for the class that I thought was worthwhile for both crunch and fluff purposes. Works well with both classes.
2. Tattooed Sorcerer (Inner Sea Magic) affects sorcerer, go figure, - Great archetype not overpowered, but it's inclusions can be really nice.
3. Thug (APG) changes Rogue, I like the concept of a more physical thief than a cat burgular. Frankly Rogue has more good archetypes than almost any class. Vexing Dodger, Rake, Counterfeit Mage, Knife Master, all had a chance of making my list, and as a concept I love the Deadly Courtesan (but disliked the mechanics so I made a "deadly courtesan" with a completely different class)
4. Infiltrator (APG) affects Ranger. Makes the ranger more about knowing their foes and their foes terrain to use the foes strength to overcome them. I like it a lot, though 1. Ranger has a ton of archetypes and 2. the Hunter is far more what the Ranger always should have been than the Ranger base class.
5. Warpriest (ACG) - yeah I know it's a full class right now, but I think it's more what I really want from the Paladin class. It does a lot of the same stuff (Sacred Weapon/Armor) more effectively, the casting is better, the BAB is worse. But all together it is the holy warrior of the system. IMO it's the most balanced class mechanically to come out of any book since at least the APG maybe even the core. It's flexible and can be what the player wants without the overshadowing demands of a single alignment.
If it's cool I'll jump in late Canis Dirus invited. I have all the armies unlocked though everything I have in tier is low CHA. (I know that going in not overly worried, personally.)
Personally, I'd say the inclusion on a chronicle sheet would a potential reason they weren't included, unless further clarification were to be offered by Paizo staff.
Also, for characters with CHA 10 or better you can always embed the Ioun stones between sessions (basically takin away the negative consequence of failure) as per a Mike Brock ruling from 2012
1. One of my favorite homegame characters was a cleric of an Iron God who used Sacred Geometry and Arithmancy to show a connection with the patterns and math of the world.
2. Both feats are from Occult Mysteries
3. Sacred Geometry shouldn't be PFS legal. It's incredibly powerful and potentially hugely timeconsuming. I only know one other player personally that I'd allow to use it.
Arithmacy on the other hand gives up a swift action to get at best a +1 bump to caster level. Other than the charting (which the player should be doing before the session IMO) to figure out what the DC of the check is no real reason it couldn't be included in PFS play
Perth - How they got 9 skills at level 1?
Medium (4) int (2) Human Skilled (1) FCB (1) - maybe mentored was seen as a dot not a bonus or something boosted but not dotted?
Climb and Swim don't have ranks in them, but Hero Lab stat blocks like to include them. Both of them are +2 for strength, +1 for Champion. Perth has 7 skill ranks.
Will take a stab at the build bits - Guessing some of it gets caught in the
Perth - Where they are getting so much damage? (+2 needed)
Seance Boon: You gain a +2 bonus on all non-spell damage rolls.
I saw the spirit bonus didn't think of the Seance boon being calculated in though. Ooc, wouldn't there also be a penalty to Initiative in that case though. I don't know medium very well.
Quote:
Gwinn - How did they get 12 skills at level 1?
Rogue (8) int (2) Human Skilled (1) FCB (1) - with fast learner for the hp as well
Makes sense, I had quick counted feats and assumed that focused study took away skilled not a feat, but turns out weapon finesse from finesse training takes care of it.
Quote:
Perth - How they got 9 skills at level 1?
Medium (4) int (2) Human Skilled (1) FCB (1) - maybe mentored was seen as a dot not a bonus or something boosted but not dotted?
Could be, not sure
Quote:
Brackish - second trait:
Something for perception as a class skill as Shaman do not get it and it is pirate goodness
Ahh yep that could totally be it. I remembered something about the Hamatulatsu was wrong and couldn't find it quickly on my way out of work. The feat not the archetype, my bad.
Both versions of Michiko have a +1 frost katana listed in her attack line, but her gear lists a +1 katana, and there's no +1 frost katana on the chronicle sheet. Also, an antipaladin divine bond can't replicate the frost property. Am I missing something, or is there a mismatch there? (It just seems like a lot for a low-level npc to have a 8000-ish gp weapon.)
Pretty sure it's supposed to be cold damage from the Graveknight template Channel Destruction ability, but I don't have the scenario in front of me to double check.
I have a local player who was looking through the builds for any tricks they may want to include in a future build for themselves and they were asking me for clarifications on what they found. Below I listed the questions I couldn't answer.
Mechanics questions:
Perth - Where they are getting so much damage? (As far as I can tell they are getting 2 extra damage on every attack, though the ranged damage at least is probably just meant to be a composite longbow with a +2 strength rating, though it is a regular longbow according to the stat block)
Perth - How they got 9 skills at level 1? (by my count 7 made sense, 8 if they hadn't put FCB into hp)
Brackish - What's the character's second trait? (The first is reactionary) - Not super important, as there didn't seem to be anything mechanically missing but they were still curious
Gwinn - How did they get 12 skills at level 1? (I could account for 10, 11 if they hadn't included FCB to hp)
Ran it yesterday, was able to get it done in 4 hours on the nose. I don't suggest it. It felt extremely pressured (on me) to try and keep the table on track and from doing almost anything distracting other than one short break (bathrooms and such are needed). I'd highly recommend at least 5 if not 6 hours as a more likely time to get them all done.
Loot question The gust of wind wand is listed at 18 charges cost 4050
For a second level spell wand that would be 45 charges should it be a 45 charge wand or cost 1620 for an 18 charge wand. (there is no mechanical reason to give a gust of wind wand a higher caster level)
I caught this too - is it supposed to be a CL 3 wand at that price (I, too, see no mechanical need for it to be), or should it be edited to cost 1620?
Thanks!
Umm, the mechanical reason for CL 3 is that it's the minimum caster level for it to be cast at all (druid 2, sorc/wiz 2). Though if you're asking if there is a possibility that it be a higher caster level, that provides two problems 1) there is no caster level effect to the spell, so there's no reason for it to be and 2) even if it were the math works out to make that CL 7.5, so no probably not that either. The most likely conclusion is it was mispriced as a 3rd level spell instead of a 2nd level spell. As there are two possible solutions to work out the correct price (either 45 charges or 1620 gp) I think the only solution GMs can use at the moment is to avoid the wand altogether and use one of the other locations.
I've done one for Thornkeep before, I'll have to see if I can find it anywhere. Pretty sure I used Ambrus Valsin and included some small clue about the door jewel placement
Now I dont think anyone should do this but my question is is there any rule against it.
Can a player make a character that is a straight wizard with and int of 8. Gaining next to nothing from the class and being a terrible character.
Is there any rule preventing this?
Your mileage may vary, while the character may be legally built you may find GMs/players/regions who find a character designed in this way to be a violation of the "Don't be jerk" rule as it is being purposely designed to be ineffective.
In a high level module I watched a friend roll a two against a disentigrate, use his reroll ability only to Nat 1. (By the way he would have made the save on a 3 or 4) And that character was no more.
Thats really not feasible for pfs. You can't get a +2 weapon much before level 6ish , and PFs is halfway done by them.
I agree that two agile weapons is fairly unfeasible for an entire build in PFS. The only way potential I see around it is a DEX monk with an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists, even the though you're looking at flurrying not really dual wielding. Otherwise an unchained monk is by far the most viable option. (In fact my DEX monk has 4 levels of Unchained Rogue as I found the dip far more viable.)
I've GMed 5 almost TPKs sometimes a person or two made it out, more often than not most made it out alive with at most 1 actually dead with another one or more unconscious. Death is a part of being an adventurer, while I'm not out to kill the players (and don't really care for it when it happens) the characters I'm running are just as the pathfinders are out to kill them.
All of these situations arose from one of three situations or a combination of them.
a) An under prepared party - generally a bad mix of classes/characters at the table. Most recent example, party of 5 Rogue (spent most of his time on a flying carpet, dealing next to no damage), Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, Gunslinger. Best chance of using a wand was the first rogue's UMD of +5. High CHA score at the table was 10 and the only trained social skill at the table was Intimidate. They made it out alive (with one guy rocking 6 CHA damage on a 7 CHA character and significant damage), had it not been for a NAT 1 on my part I don't think they would have made it out at all. Had one player brought a different character or grabbed a pregen (most likely Seelah or Kyra) they would have had a much easier time. There are a lot of scenarios in which they may have been successful, but a more versatile party would have a better chance overall.
b) Custom Monster vastly mis-CRed or monster with deceptively low CR for actual challenge. Examples without spoilers - harpies, ghouls and cuestodaemons come to mind.
One more example includes scenario name:
Final combat in the high tier on Fortress of the Nail matches the average CR stats for a monster of CR 16 or 17 in a 5-9, and gets a pretty massive home court advantage on top.
c) A bad player decision leads to an almost perfect storm of enemy advantage. Most recent example. In a 7-11, 6 players 5 11's and an 8 (bard). Make it through the entire scenario with relative ease until the final boss. Make it to boss and arrange themselves with ample opportunity to prepare/pre-buff. Player 1 suggests prebuffing, Player 2 suggests checking on the McGuffin to see just how hard it's going to be. Player 3 follows Player 2's idea. Turns out it was pretty easy. Combat begins instantly with the players in really bad shape. Fight ended with 1 player dead (twice - Breath of Life), 2 players each at 1 HP, 1 player at 17 or so HP, and the last player at 52 or so. They made some good tactical decisions after the first round and earlier in the scenario that helped them a lot, but it was still 1 or so round from a TPK. Had they pre-buffed there likely would have been some damage done to them, but not nearly so much and it probably would have saved the Bard's lives. (As a note I've seen the same boss killed in a single round by a different party)
I don't think I'm a killer GM in fact of 130+ tables I've outright killed less than 10 characters (and I think less than 5 even), but sometimes a TPK can be a good learning experience (and even a cool story later at times)
The specials were my bane, I had 3 last May, and got my 10th Special at GenCon 2016.
** spoiler omitted **
An aside to the Aside:
While the 10 specials crunch is certainly felt in some (maybe even a lot of) places, I had my 10 specials just before my 4th star. This was in the past year. In that time I think I only ran one special twice. Off the top of my head, Bonekeep 1, Race for the Runcarved Key 1, Siege of Serpents * 2, Sky Key Solution, True Dragons of Absalom, Serpenet's Rise, Serpent's Ire, Cosmic Captive, and Through the Maelstrom Rift. About half of those don't even require a convention to run these days making it significantly easier to run some, though most require that you be a 4* GM already. Going to conventions certainly eases the burden on getting specials done but it is no longer the requirement it once was. On the other hand I know one 4* GM who has 300+ tables but not 10 specials.
Edit: Turns out I was wrong on timing - the 10 the special hit at table 115
Due to the most current ruling on Ninjas (i.e. not being able to be Unchained) and the release of a couple of Ninja archetypes I'd lean towards no to be on the safe side.
Probably, but I'm not sure it doesn't defeat the purpose of Core.
An aside:
Frankly if we were allowed to add 1 book APG wouldn't even be in my top 3 for addition. I think Ultimate Equipment would be a sensible addition. The Field Guide and Primer make a lot of sense too. I'd like Unchained and the ACG better than the APG for classes.
Other points aside, I'm very impressed with your in-depth knowledge of the demographics of the player base. To know exactly what every player with one of these rings is using it for, across all of PFS? Now that is impressive.
Especially since I don't particularly recall anyone else saying anything about this being abused with any great frequency.
Of course, I'm also trying to figure out why this is really that much worse than a fox form kitsune with a potion of fly, or overland flight from a scroll. I mean, yeah, people aren't going to ignore a flying fox, but people don't generally ignore a songbird indoors or underground, either. Also, that fox can pop in and out of animal form at will, has no time limits, better flight maneuverability, etc.
Yeah and it costs them significant;y more to do it. 3 potions of fly cost more than the ring, let alone the difference in price of the ring and a ring of protection (+1).
Don't get me wrong I think the fox-form kitsune is ridiculous OP too (and am hoping the trait in Blood of Beast that makes it doable at 1st level doesn't make it), but in comparison the ring is generally worse.
I'm familiar with the archetype. I still don't see why it's banned.
While you are familiar as the person asking the question, many of us are not. It is generally a good policy to leave a link to the rule/archetype you are asking about, in this case I believe Nefreet was taking care of that for you.
That said, while some people may be able to give you there opinion on why it was banned, it is unlikely to be definitively answered. The traditional reasons for banning something include:
1) Flavor reasons - i.e. it's evil, linked to some non-Pathfinder organization, linked to some rare weird thing, it doesn't fit the flavor of PFS (in Golarion)
2)Crunch i.e. it's overpowered, there's an odd rule interaction that is either highly exploitable or commonly interpreted differently to what was intended, it's linked to something that was already banned so as to prevent a backdoor into a banned option,
3)Other i.e. Being saved for a potential boon, being saved for an upcoming enemy/story arc
Since the newer ruling has bee made by the Campaign Coordinator (at the time) it is the ruling that takes precedence for PFS play. Right now you can get extra slot this way in PFS.
(It probably should be/have been changed in the FAQ as well though)
As an aside, I haven't been following the Starfinder discussion at all. Does anybody know if they're planning on taking the opportunity to essentially create Pathfinder version 2.0? Simplify lots of things, try and bring various characters in line power wise, etc.
The single biggest thing that is coming close to driving me from PFS is the power creep. One major reason that I like Core games. Unfortunately, Core is dead locally (yes, I tried. Managed to keep it going for about 9 months before it died) so the only place I get to play is online
I'm not sure about what's on the boards, I know there are people who know the answer to your question (as there is a playtest group out there), but since they're under a NDA they won't be able to answer your question.
Clerics and druids don't have to trade with one another except in core, because they automatically get all the spells available from their deities or the natural world. There were divine spellbooks in Arcane Anthology, though, so maybe this will be more of a thing.
I would like to see spellbooks open up a bit more as an option though. I love the idea of trading spells with other players. Dumb question... can you only scribe spells from your list? If I dipped magus, would I be only able to scribe magus spells, or could I scribe all arcane spells? So many questions arise here.
Hmm
Traditionally, only spells on your list. Magus can take spells on both list from wizard and vice versa, even more interesting an Alchemist can scribe to their formula book from a Wizard or Magus (or others potentially, assuming it's on their list), but a Wizard can't scribe from the Alchemist
In fact it would potentially save some headaches/variation in a secondary arena. In core Wizards can learn non-Core spells by adding them to their spellbook, IIRC this ruling extended (in some fashion) to Sorcerer as well. What about Divine Casters who 'know' all their spells by prayer' by allowing a spellbook (even possibly reflavored as prayerbook/hymnal) extends that ability to all casters
Core allows non wizards to gain access to non core spells if they appear as a scroll on the chronicle and you purchase and expend it. This applies to divine as well as arcane casters as far as I am aware.
It could, I remember it being Sorcerer, but it is a while ago. The visibility would be nice, and making it adding to a spellbook just makes it easily visible and allows clerics the ability to trade with each other the way wizards can which extends beyond the scroll in scenario possibility. (Same with Druids and Sorcerers for that matter)
As much as I like the archetype (and mechanically I think it's a straight upgrade to base bard), I think it's fair to have a significant cost to building up the library of scrolls/spellbooks for the bard (whether it's opportunity cost in dipping out for a spellbook class or in buying named spellbooks and scrolls). You're functionally getting an upgraded Mnemonic Vestments for free that stacks with Mnemonic Vestments. That said there are a number of archetypes (and even items) that don't fit the original spellbook design (i.e. Wizard only), it would be nice to see a set ruling put somewhere more visible like Campaign clarifications so that it becomes a set and known policy.
In fact it would potentially save some headaches/variation in a secondary arena. In core Wizards can learn non-Core spells by adding them to their spellbook, IIRC this ruling extended (in some fashion) to Sorcerer as well. What about Divine Casters who 'know' all their spells by prayer, by allowing a spellbook (even possibly reflavored as prayerbook/hymnal) extends that ability to all casters.
Aasimar Swashbuckler (7.2)
Aasimar GM/Dragons Demand Blob (6)
Tiefling Paladin 5/Oracle 4 (claims to be a double gnome)
Gnome Sorcerer 8 (adoptive father of Tiefling)
Human (Ulfen) Warpriest 5 (originally intended to be a half-orc)
Wayang Alchemist 2
I have 2 Ifrit and 1 Sylph boons as well, but not sure what I'll do with them.
