BennActive's page

There's a gentleman that plays in my area that is visual impaired. His friend (sister?) usually plays with him and reads off the dice to him. The GM describes the map layout and placement of characters and he gives his character's actions. It works just fine. He doesn't have all his numbers memorized so someone helps him with his character sheet but he has fun all the same.

There's some considerations when he sits down at the table, but really it's not much more work for other people than helping someone new to gaming.

'Sani wrote:

While in many lodges scenarios are reported by Venture Officers, anyone can report a game that they GMed. So if there is a pattern of games you GMed not getting reported, you should probably start reporting them yourself. You need the PFS numbers of the people who played at your table to report it correctly, and if you have them, I'm sure they'd appreciated having their games reported as much as you would.

This.

Unless its all been conventions that have not been reported. Those usually handle reporting centrally. But if its a certain con, better let those people know there is something wrong so they can work on their reporting.

A good idea in general when dealing with situations like this, but for my specific situation it no longer applies. I'm not a part of that lodge anymore since I've moved. Maybe if I run into that trouble again.

A good lesson for GMs stuck in awkward situations.

As far as I'm concerned or can prove yes you get to replay it. (YMMV) I'd personally warn the GM about having some out-of-game knowledge (as if you had GMed it)

Cool. Thanks for the input. I'm usually very careful when I play a scenario that I've already GM'd or that I've prepared to run. I let the rest of the table make important decisions.

Make the materials that the double weapon is made from different for both ends (e.g. cold iron/mithril). It'll get expensive, but then it makes sense that your character has this double bladed weapon and switches which blade is used depending on what the situation requires.

So if I don't have the chronicle anymore and it was never reported does that basically mean I never played the scenario? The character in question is illegal for play, but is the scenario itself freed up to be played legally on someone else? I don't want to cheat the system to get a free replay, but I'm basically not getting the benefit of the first play through if my character gets audited.

What do you do if you've lost a scenario sheet and the scenario in question was never reported? Or you GM'd a scenario and the only evidence you have is your own written GM sheet since the scenario was never reported?

Yes, I told the the Venture Captain about the non-reported scenarios and then later on gave a massive and detailed list to his successor. I think maybe a third of the scenarios were actually fixed or added.

Since I have no evidence any longer for some games should I go back through the chronicle sheets that I do have and attempt to edit it so that the missing scenarios no longer factor into gold/items bought and experience? I get the feeling after a certain point the character would just no longer make sense since they'd be below the tier they were indicated as playing

What about my GM stars? I've run over 30 games, but since several of them were never reported officially I'm listed as a single star GM. After not seeing the game reported in two years I'm going to go with it never getting reported and don't know how to proceed from there.

Sound Striker Bard archetype.

As a GM I would be very hesitant to allow a player control of more than two characters at once. The action economy afforded a player with two characters is already strong enough. I might allow the two familiars, but would pull a PFS and say that only one can be used during combat. Still, unless they had a really compelling reason I would most likely say that the figment familiar manifests as a real familiar when the character gains the witch level and loses its figment archetype.

This is one of those times when you have to go with a RAI instead of RAW because archetype interaction messes with the assumption that all familiar classes cast spells. You familiar returns after entering an anti-magic field or whatnot when you wake up from 8 hours of sleep just like if it had died.

This does mean that your fighter or rogue has to get 8 hours of sleep just like a spellcaster in order to get their familiar back.

Complete lack of understanding of social etiquette. Stands too close to people. Stares too much. Doesn't always wear appropriate clothing. No shame.

Writes. All those questions and subsequent answers Seven asks goes into its journals. When it doesn't have a journal handy will write on whatever portable surface is available. Very protective of its collection.

Finds itself absolutely and utterly uninteresting for now. The fact that Seven is unique or different is unimportant and not worth answering questions as to its function or origins. This could then change as the story progresses and Seven realizes the value of understanding who you are and where you come from.

Religiously zealous and/or inept. Loves Brigh and espouses her superiority to all other deities and ideologies even though Seven makes up half of it. Anyone who actually corrects it on Seven's beliefs gets the cold stare and is ignored.

Someone with inside knowledge on Zarta Dralneen's diary was under a compulsion to reveal its contents to us during the fight. Having someone scream the Paracountess's dark secrets to you while trying to kill you is both hilarious and terrifying.

Extra props to the GM for running that scenario cold!

The answer to your question with the stipulations you have given is no.

That fact that rounds of Cleric Rage stack with rounds of Barbarian rage seems to imply they are essentially the same thing with the exception of the stated changes in the cleric's entry. I honestly think that's a neat idea and don't see how it would negatively impact the game to allow it for one of my players. I am happy to hear examples, however.

YYEEEEEEEEEEESSSSS!!!!!! I'm so glad the MP issues were fixed. Magic Circles were also a bit lackluster so changing them sounds good and the Outsider Aid is a great surprise. My PFS Occultist will be level five by the time this book rolls out so I'm excited to flip him over to the new version.

The lack of fluff really makes it hard to judge the race. It would be like if someone presented you a cake they had just baked and wanted you to tell them if it tasted good before they added the frosting. Yes the cake bit is good but it's still not a complete cake yet to evaluate.

It's important to think about WHY you need the race you are adding. There are A LOT of cave dwelling or underground races. The thing that I found surprising about your choice was the bonus to Charisma and Sing. This sounds like a friendly, good leaning race which isn't as common underground.

The Race Builder is frustrating because there's all these goodies and you can't pick all of them. what you can do, however, is keep a few in your mind as alternate class features or create/borrow race specific feats to add in more abilities you had to abandon during the editing process.

I love being the summon X guy, but even being incredibly prepared, it still slows things down. I now never play it with a party size over 4 as that seems to be the breaking point.

If you just want a house rule to limit the summon X without getting rid of it altogether, then ban the summoning of multiples. The "bog" is mostly just related to summoning 1d3+1 of something with multiple attacks. Rolling 12 separate attacks on my first turn as early as level 3 may be fun for me, but not for everyone else.

That's actually what I was thinking about doing. I may limit people to one summon and one companion (familiar, cohort, mount, etc.) So glad to hear someone else thinking along the same lines.

I appreciate the general advice comments, but that's not the focus of this thread. I'm not a newbie GM and had already planned to do most of the advice that's been given. I made this thread partially as a fun thread to hear wacky builds and stories from games.

Edit: but again, I do appreciate everything that's already been posted. It's good to hear again.

Hey folks. It looks like I'm about to GM my very first long term campaign so a few random concerns have popped into my head. It boils down to two questions:

1. What are some very powerful/annoying builds you've come across as a player or GM? (i.e. summons focused casters clogging up the battle field)

2. How did you or the GM counterbalance the build? (anti-summoning magic, readied actions to force a concentration check, etc.)

I don't want to outright deny my players things they want to play, but I want to walk in prepared with compromises and/or an agenda in order to ensure everyone at the table has a good experience and not just the min/max'd shenaniganer.

I love my occultist but wasn't really sure how the "fixated on items" aspect of the flavor really fit with my concept. After reading this Iconic I think I understand my own character better.

Seattle is awesome :P I live out on Capitol Hill :P

I'm moving to Seattle in a month! So excited to leave West Virginia.

BennActive wrote:

Bloodrager can opt for a bloodline familiar. No feats required until Improved familiar!

What is that?

From Familiar Folio. Sorcerers and Bloodragers can opt out of their 1st level bloodline power in order to gain a familiar. The familiar has a bonus ability related to the bloodline.

Bloodrager can opt for a bloodline familiar. No feats required until Improved familiar!

I think if I were to make this I would forgo the intelligent items and focus purely on the Angel/Devil angle as a full summoner, but a Bladebound magus/summoner does sound tempting with Angel/Neutral/Devil

Edit: Ooops, Bladebound Magus specifically says it can't have a familiar. I suppose there's a RAW argument that you can get it through feats, but I don't know how well that would hold up. Oh well. Pure Summoner it is if I were to ever steal this awesome idea. Maybe I'll make an NPC sometime and name him Rev Dooralt.

Improved familiar for fiendish animal kicks in at caster level 3. Maybe it's not a Devil/Demon in the traditional sense.

Oh main, which ever partner you choose reflects what attitude you take that day! If you go with the Angel then you'll be helpful and nice, but if you take the Demon then you'll be rude and mean. I love this idea.

I think you need to decide what your character will actually do during encounters. The flavor is there, but you need to decide what mechanics you need in order to decide other things. I believe the More Fighter idea is that the character will be melee combat focused.

I think you following the Good vs. Evil theme you should focus on buffing your party when following the Angel and attacking your enemies with spells when following the Demon. Beefy Charisma for the high DC you need while the Demon is in charge.

Tongues has been a lot of fun to roleplay. I actually switch into another language while playing my character (no one in my gaming circle speaks Ukrainian) and I have had some very frustrating experiences of not being able to communicate during combat.

I'm not going to be very helpful in this discussion because I enjoy the damaging aspect of the oracle curses. They're suppose to be flavorful detriments that ease as you level up.

Eldritch Guardian archetype. Kitsune with Fox shape at level 3. Improved Familiar Sprite at 5. You lose your first fighter bonus feats and have assigned 2/3 feats by 5th level. I'm not sure gold cost of weapon and the special saddle for you. It's doable but might need to wait until 7th level to get improved familiar just for more archery feats and gold before hand.

The non-humanoid but class dependent races like Wyrwood, Wyvaran, and Ghoran. They'd probably be abused heavily, but I find them interesting. I guess I'd be happy if they became regular race boons like the elemental geniekin.

Why are Changelings so popular? Flavor wise they just don't appeal to me (I don't like Hags and the baby-hag angle is off putting)and I don't see a lot of amazing mechanical reasons.

A celesteial spirit oni May meet opposition on a wizard:)

Aasimar with Celestial Servant and Improved Familiar does weird reality breaking things. I basically tried to find the most ridiculous combination for a familiar and stumbled upon this weird hiccup in the Shaman abilities. I don't even mind if it's not possible, but I dislike the ambiguity of the sentence in the Shaman description and want someone who had a hand in its development to explain the intentions.

I think the GM made a really bad decision and reflects a bad perspective on the game. If "participation" is only based on dealing damage and killing things then it wipes out a lot of game play. Some people are buffers or faces or skill monkeys and combat isn't always something they contribute to. That was an extremely inappropriate decision to ignore the contributions of the rest of that group in that encounter that began upon finding the well.

Get a new GM if conversation doesn't appear to be working.

I believe the last two hours of discussion highlights the problem. There's enough ambiguity and a lack of understanding of priority to know which side is correct. Onyxlion and Cap. Darling make good arguments but I haven't seen anyone point to a solid rule in the books to clarify which is the correct interpretation.

If it was a home game I wouldn't stress it as a GM and hope as a player my GM would allow me to use the feat. In Society Play, I'm nervous about my Shaman idea because it hinges on Improved Familiar (ridiculously cheesy Celestial Heaven Spirit Oni.) I've got plenty of other characters to play so it's not end of the world, but something official in understanding how Improved Familiar and Shaman's Spirit Animal interact would be very nice.

It really bothers me that this is not addressed in any official capacity. The phrase "same sort of creature" is not a mechanical concept. What does "sort" mean within the rules?

Does that mean it's okay to turn a raven into a celestial raven?
Does that mean the raven can become the Nosoi psychopomp familiar which is essentially a bird still?
Can I have an elemental familiar if I keep it in the same shape as the base animal? My raven familiar becomes a raven shaped fire elemental?

Is this all unnecessary guessing and in reality I can improve my familiar to anything?

My Crusader's Flurry Sacred Fist took a dip into Ecclesitheurge Cleric archetype in order to get flurry with a glaive at level 3 with no retraining. of course this means she cannot wear armor because Shelyn will protect her, but that fits perfectly with the roleplay aspect of one of my favorite characters.

Probably need to sit down with the person running the Paladin and work it out if you're dedicated to this character concept (does the character HAVE to be evil?) It seems like you're going to have to set ground rules and expectation of character developments and behavior.

Random ideas off the top of my head:
Perhaps the "noble" Paladin is secretly waiting to lull you into letting down your guard before striking out a rising evil in the name of his/her god.

Maybe one of your characters really will shift alignments towards the other. The Paladin goes nutty and becomes an antipaladin. You have a change of heart and start summoning celestial beings and retraining away from necromancy.

You hide your true nature as much as possible from the Paladin. A lot of bluffing and smoke and mirrors.

There is a greater evil in the world and the Paladin just deals with having you in the party.

Your group hand waves the issue.

You combined some of these ideas. You hide your nature for awhile. The Paladin discovers the truth and plans on eliminating you. Instead a greater evil shows up and the paladin focuses on using you to help defeat it. Ultimately one of you breaks and shifts alignments. There's a possibility for really good story telling here.

I do want to take a moment to compliment you on your GM skills. Creating alternate encounter expectations from simply "kill everything" to a more dynamic goal is exactly what I would have suggested. I'm sorry to hear it's still not working. I'll agree with everyone else that you may need to sit down one on one with the player and then possibly the whole group to calmly and politely address the matter.

If a character is reducing the fun of the group as a whole then changes need to be made. You need to figure out what is the goal of each person. Some people want to bring the character with the highest damage per round or the craziest character concept or they don't really care just as long as they get a good story out of the deal.

As a GM if you came to me with this idea I would say no as it stands. From my viewpoint you're essentially wanting to play a character that is awesome at combat and awesome at spell casting while having double the actions of a regular character. I doubt you're intending to be over powering with this fun roleplay concept but that may not be what happens in actual game play and as a GM I would veto the concept.

Maybe this would be a good NPC duo to encounter but I would not let a player be two characters. This highlights some of the flaws with summoners, but it's your best bet for getting it allowed. Or convert the brute into an animal companion (possibly placing the ability score increases into intelligence) that the druid, oracle, ranger, inquisitor, cleric, hunter, etc. rides.

The only die TYPES in the game are the d4, d6, d8, d10 (and d%), d12, and d20.

but if you deal 1d8 with your regular attack and you increase in size you now deal 2d6 damage with your attack, not 1d10.

I think this is a confusion on the definition of die type. In this case the d# you listed are not the only types that we use to determine damage. 2d6 is a different type from 1d6 in this case.

Eidolon definitely got nerfed, but I'm guessing they'll still be strong. I haven't gotten to look at Unchained yet though. I look forward to rebuilding my summoner using Unchained rules and compare the eidolons to each other.

Players should be allowed to play what they like. Adjusting the CR - not making specific counters to his character - is THE answer.

I don't agree with that sentiment. A GM can lay out certain rules for a game (especially if it's agreed upon by most players at the table) for what is and is not allowed. Now, I would try my hardest to accommodate and make suggestions for better integration, but sometimes you just have to put your foot down and say no.

Also, increasing the CR to address one character may mean that someone else who has chosen a less powerful build may struggle too much to contribute to the increased danger. While increasing CR is a solution and certainly one to use, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's THE answer and imply the others couldn't be used as well.

What's really important is to not make the player angry simply for choosing a build that you allowed. You don't want to constantly squash a player's choices (Such as having an enchantment caster and almost always throwing at them creatures with mind-affecting spells immunity) but you have a duty to ensure the whole table is having fun, including you.

Next time you have character creation make sure you talk to the players and try to anticipate problems from overpowered builds. You're allowed to just say no, and in this case if it really is a huge problem don't be afraid to say you made a mistake by allowing a build that doesn't work with the play style of the table.

Please show me this language you speak of in the Improved Damage evolution, I'm just not seeing it.

The Improved damage evolution includes this line "Select one natural attack form and increase the damage die type by one step."

the key part is "increase the damage die type by one step."

The FAQ says- The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one.

"your damage die type increases by one step" is similar to "increase the damage die type by one step." which means Improved Damage Evolution is counted as an effective size increase. The feat Improved Nature Attack is also an effective size increase. They do not stack with each other but could stack with one actual size increase.

Talk to your players. See how they feel about it first. Summoning magic can get really frustrating because of how many creatures one player gets to control. It can slow down combat and nullify threats. It may be that everyone is okay with that or that others want to see a change.

Then shake things up with some ideas that challenge the summoning magic.

Throw a summoner-type at the party. Summoned beasts versus summoned demons!

Have anti-summoning spells already in effect. (there's a Pathfinder Scenario where they've imprisoned a demon and the whole chamber is protected against summoning magic.)

Word has gotten out about the druid and it calling animals to aid the party. The villains sometimes specifically ready an action to disrupt the druid while it casts. This is tactic my smarter archers employ when I GM and the caster is trivializing encounters.

Make sure you include non-combat encounters (role play, skill checks, puzzles, espionage, etc.) that helps to highlight other abilities the party may have.

The key is to not constantly do the same thing. Sometimes the druid is going to rock things out and feel awesome, and sometimes it's going to have to go with a different strategy.

Except the Improved Damage evolution doesn't appear to be a size increase or even an effective size increase. It appears you actually change the die type to the next higher die type.

That means you use the following progression:
d4 > d6 > d8 > d10 > d12 > d20

It appears to be a distinctly separate rule from what we see on the damage size tables.

But the FAQ specifically calls out the language used by the evolution and includes that language in defining what can and cannot stack. The evolution uses language that places it into a category that cannot stack with the language used by the feat.

Вітаємо! Дуже радий, щоб прочитати це!)))))

FAQ- The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one.

Feat- as if the creature's size had increased by one category

Evolution- increase the damage die by one step

The feat and the evolution do not stack with each other. They could stack with an actual increase in size, however.

Graves has the troops subtype. Troops are swarms for Medium or Small creatures.

Thanks for the ideas! I'm very excited to get this amusing concept rolling.

I was paging* through the Familiar Folio and discovered the Leshy Warden Druid Archetype and knew I had to buy the book. I freakin' love Leshies and am now trying to build one for Pathfinder Society play. I am trying to figure out how to make my desires at least decently viable for play. If you think Leshy Warden is stupid and should be changed then I do please ask you to leave the thread and PM me your tirade against my choices instead.

Basic Premise
Oread Druid (Yes I have the race boon)
Leshy Warden Archetype (Growth Subdomain)
Leaf or eventually Gourd Leshy
Mauler Archetype Familiar

I am not 100% sure if Leshy familiars can take archetypes, but if I can I want to make a ridiculous cute battle leshy to fight alongside my melee druid. I'm looking for suggestions on feat, tactics, traits, items etc. If you've got a compelling reason to alter any of the Basic Premise but the Druid archetype I am certainly happy to look at alternate solutions to the idea of Leshy Druid.

*I initially was going to write "leafing" but thought better of it.

Hereh (pronounced as an exhale of air and a grow) is a Kitsune Shapeshifter/Witch Guard Ranger. He was raised by the witches of Irrisen as basically a pet. He's now escaped and joined the Pathfinder Society. I haven't gotten to play him yet, but he will be incredibly submissive to magic users. He also has a hierarchy of who he will follow. He follows the most powerful arcane caster. If there's no arcane then he follows the divine casters that are more powerful casters. Should the group only have divine casters at a lower caster level than himself. Hereh is in charge, clearly.

Eliot is my halfling occultist. He has the Childlike racial feat and focused on disguise and bluff so he can masquerade as a human child. One of his implements is a doll named Mrs. Rackleshack who frequently comes to life for scouting and oddjobs. My opening line when I sit down at a PFS table (in a higher pitched very childish voice) "Hi! My name's Eliot, and this is Mrs. Rackleshack! Will you be our new friend?" It is played very psychotic cheerful with a hint of creepy since he casts evocation and necromancy spells. I love him very much.

Any rules produced by Paizo can be overridden by a GM in their home games. This really only affects society play. I don't know if you're talking about ignoring the rules in society but if not then I think you're free to use the version of the rules you like and your players can handle.

Personally I have no problem with the change.

My advice for going into Pathfinder Society play is allow for some flexibility. The tasks assigned to agents are varied. One adventure is all about dungeon crawling lost civilizations, another one you're rubbing shoulders with the elite, suddenly you've got to investigate corruption in order to save the poor children, and then you've got to break into a business and commit petty acts of thuggery.

I've seen a lot of role play focused players balk at adventure premises and argue with the GM playing Venture Captain at the start of scenarios. They're trying to justify why their character should bother playing but missing the real reason is because they and the people around them want to have fun and this is the scenario they happen to be playing. Be flexible during character creation. Yes, your character is going to insult the poor people you've been sent to help and is going to make it very clear that he's in it for the money, but he's in it for the money and will make sure the task gets done. Or whatever you choose to justify. I think figuring out why your character would break the key components of his personality actually builds a stronger character over all.