Search Posts
My observation comes from conventions, since I'm primarily a PbP GM/player now. However, I do occasionally run/play on VTT and once upon a time had a meat space venue. There are two circumstances that drew out run time: 1) more and more people want to embody their role play probably as a side effect of streaming campaigns they watch, and 2) new players or new to content players (run times increase around me for the next couple of months a new class is released). None if those are bad things, but they are part of the variables.
I was in a very high level scenario where one of the spellcasters rode a pony to gain increased mobility. Ignoring that it looked like has was forgetting most of the mount in combat rules, there came a point where the enemy won initiative and did a large, very damaging AOE that no pony would survive even on a save. So static low level animals really don't age well in adventuring life.
I could have sworn there was a price for Guard Dog, but I cannot find it. However, if there is, then that +4 Survival is going to fail to keep up with the level-based challenges very quickly. Dog has no stats so cannot Track or Perceive. The Bird has no stats so cannot Perform. This is all just to shed a light on the value of the feats in PFS.
A point with some distinction to mention: you are bequeathing access to the specific option and not the boon (boons have no rarity or access requirements). So if you have Extinction Curse book 1's chronicle, you can give one spell from "One with Nature" to another character and one of the others to a different character using two Bequeathal boons. This also means you don't get access to all 3 spells in "One with Nature" with one Bequeathal boon.
You can see the abuses of banking downtime: each unit's value increases by your level, so a unit earned on your first level 1 scenario (0.05 gp) inflates if you hold it until level 5 (0.5 gp, 10-fold) or level 10 (2.5 gp, 50-fold). Furthermore, if one could bank Downtime, a character could wait until level 6 to craft a half-price magic staff instantly with units of Downtime from a time when you never could have attempted that act of crafting. I know it was clarified many times in the first year, but I don't know where to find the explicit statement.
Saying there's a difference between "creature type" and "type of creature"-- when the rule explicitly refers to one of the creature types-- is quite a stretch.A search of the CRB comes up with zero hits for "creature type" and "type of creature". Just traits. Then your search program has failed you because this discussion literally stems from a line in the CRB that contains the exact string of words: "type of creature." However, you sre correct in part. The rules term is actually "Monster Type."
I don't think anyone's saying it shouldn't be fixed. I'm only saying that the Held or Worn item rules do not obviously reference the creature type rules element because "humanoid" is also a common word to describe a body shape. EDIT: Where do you get that conrasu definitely don't have feet? Conrasus themselves are called to a path and, once they find it, shape frames to create a suitable form, leading to a wide variety of appearances.
By the plain English meaning of that sentence, worn items cannot be used by these ancestries; that's a problem. I'd say it is fine in plain English: humanoid = a being resembling a human in shape. That there is a rules element called "creature type" with a defined variable called "humanoid" creates the potential for confusion. I will note an observation that the above sentence says "different types of creatures" but when the rules reference "creature type," it says "creature type." I would expect it to say, "different creature types" if they meant the rules element. So I believe it was written in casual language no referencing "creature type." However, there now exists--but not yet sanctioned--a non-humanoid Nagaji ancestry in that it has no legs or feet.
As has been said, you can only earn a GM chronicle once on non-repeatable content. However, you can report any PFS sanctioned adventures (not scenarios) with only your own GM information if none of your players want credit. It is recommended to give them numbers and report the credit to those numbers in case they change their mind later. This may or may not be applicable to you: I recall--subject to recall bias--that there was supposed to be a 6 month pre-sanctioning limit to what could be retroactively claimed for credit. I.e., if you ran an AP book before it was sanctioned, you could claim credit if it was sanctioned within 6 months of you running it. The obvious issues around that being obvious. You can report PFS scenarios only if you have a legal table, though.
It is awarded based on success criteria defined near the end of a PFS scenario (usually 2 for Primary and 2 for Secondary Success Conditions and sometimes an extra 1 or 2 for specific faction conditions). In this case, the GM earns all available prestige. The PCs earn whatever amount they earn. If it is a sanctioned adventure, the sanctioning document will tell you how much you get. In this case, the GM and PCs earn the same amount.
Rulebooks are not Adventures or Adventure Path volumes. To the best of my understanding: This allows players to access Adventure- or AP-specific content that is published only in those materials after having played it for credit without having to buy an Adventure or AP volume that they would otherwise have no use for.
Accepting that these issues are problems for you and not debating that, here is a clarification and a suggestion: Achievement points wouldn't make sense on Chronicle sheets. They're gained across multiple characters and spent independent of character. Suggestion: Rename the PDF file whatever you want after you download it. Us a _tag to indicate held Chronicles (e.g., Bort the Brave 2 1-00_apply at 5th.pdf). I would also create an Alias rather than a character to post on the forums unless you don't mind all your characters being named after yiurself.
This question is wrong. The leiomano is not listed as PFS Limited in the character options page. It is simply not published in a valid source at all. Despair on Danger Island, like other adventures, is not sanctioned as a source to use options from in the way that rulebooks and lost omens books are. Access conditions do not change that.
An option that requires a boon to be allowed is Limited by definition. (EDIT: And the official SRD specifically lists the Leiomano as Limited.) The short summary table is more succinct in the definition of Limited: "Your character needs a boon to gain access to this option." So the question is not "wrong." All options granted only by AP boons are Limited by definition. All APs that are sanctioned are summarized on the Additional Resources page under the spoiler "Using Options from Pathfinder Adventures or Adventure Paths."
I would put for the idea that calling an AP not "a valid source at all" is actually incorrect. That category of material ("not a valid source at all") would be 3rd party material or unsanctioned Paizo material. However, the point you're trying to convey is correct. Answering this terminology issue also answered my question: no, if it is Limited, you need a boon, even if it is Common.
I, too, echo the desire to see the World Traveler boon better "future proofed" as new regions outside Avistan and Garund will be published/expanded upon as more and more LO books are made. However, you bring up a different issue: does the Access criteria trump the PFS Limited status of the Leiomano? I.e., that you need the boon from Despair on Danger Island. But if you have the boon, then I don't think you need World Traveler to access it anyhow.
As I understand what Alex quoted: You gain access to specific firearms for being from Alkenstar (Home Region: Impossible Lands), but not to racial firearms without the Weapon Familiarity feat. Just being a Goblin is insufficient, just as as being a Goblin is insufficient to gain access to a Horse Chopper. That said, the Unofficial Guide lists Big Boom Gun on the "Beast Gun" 20 ACP boon, so that may solve your problem and save you an Ancestry Feat.
Familiar is only a Class Feature in the Witch Class. A familiar is an creature with it's own set of rules. Everywhere "you gain a familiar" is listed references that creature. A witch's familiar is no different than a gnome's familiar from the ancestry feat. The Witch Class has a class feature titled "Familiar" that grants extra powers to the base familiar. The Witch Class' class feature titled "Familiar" lists a whole bunch of things after it says "you gain a familiar." However, rather than seeing in the archetype feat's statement "You cast spells like a witch" as encapsulating all the rules around Witch Spellcasting, you see "you gain a familiar" and conclude that you also gain the benefit of the Witch Class class feature "Familiar," but only the lines from it that support the familiar is more powerful, not the lines that make no sense in context of an class archetype dedication. Also, you state this in defense of why the witch archetype's granted familiar dies not also provide the additional spells per level (though I argue the true reason is that you gain none of the Familiar class feature): No, because "but aside from the tradition, you don't gain any other effects the patron would usually grant." Why does that not apply to the extra familiar powers granted by the patron to the familiar? though as it's a direct conduit between you and your patron, it's more powerful than other familiars.
But that text isn't in Patron it's in Familiar, and you argued that you get everything in Familiar. You can't pick and choose which things you take from the Witch's Familiar entry in order to argue that you get extra familiar abilities by virtue of needing the Witch's Familiar entry to cast spells but not really everything just the parts of everything that justifies my argument. Which seems most parsimonious? That they gave a character a generic familiar with the statement "You gain a familiar" and hand waved the entire explanation that the familiar acts as a spellbook to save word count or that the familiar you get is a familiar with the extra abilities that come only from the Witch Class class feature "Familiar" without explicitly saying that but also not all of those sentences that they also didn't explicitly clarify. There's a completely separate section--separate and agnostic to all Class entries--of the CRB that defines what a familiar is, which lots of feats of different sorts grant. The Witch Class class feature "Familiar" grants you a familiar and enhances that base creature. The Witch Archetype Dedication does not grant the Witch Class class feature "Familiar."
Not so. The dedication gives you witch spell casting. Which requires a familiar and obviously gives you everything required for witch spell casting. That it cascades into multiple sections does not make it false.No, you can't take a bit of rule here and there and mix and match them. If you don't have a Witch Familiar, you don't benefit from what is written in the witch Familiar entry. If you do have a Witch Familiar you get everything from it. Emphasis mine. So... that also includes: Your familiar starts off knowing 10 cantrips, five 1st-level spells And Each time you gain a level, your patron teaches your familiar two new spells of any level you can cast, chosen from common spells of your tradition or others you gain access to. And I think most people agree that is not included in the familiar granted by the Witch archetype.
Since this thread is on Subordinate Reactions, so I will leave it at I respectfully disagree. I will also point out that the section I'm quoting is titled "Reactions in Encounters" so any example of something used outside of Encounter Mode, which itself includes Social Encounters, doesn't fit the argument.
You cast spells like a witch. How? Using your familiar as a conduit, your patron provides you the power to cast spells. Choose a patron; you gain a familiar with two common cantrips of your choice from your chosen patron's tradition, but aside from the tradition, you don't gain any other effects the patron would usually grant. At 1st level, choose your patron's theme, which determines your spellcasting tradition, None of that says you modify the familiar rules from CRB pg. 217-218 except this: Your familiar has one less familiar ability than normal. So you don't need the Witch classes modified Familiar rules to make the archetype work. Witch Spellcasting grants use of a familiar as a spellbook, which is granted by the archetype.
Yeah, I feared maybe the archetype dedication feat said something like "you gain a witch's familiar," that could lead someone to conclude that means you gain everything under the class' Familiar class feature entry, but it only says "you gain a familiar." That's the exact same language as Animal Accomplice. And "a familiar" is defined in its own section of the CRB with two abilities and no progression. The dedication subtracts one ability. So I would see it as a long stretch to say it's RAW because the text "you gain a familiar" exists inside the Witch Archetype Dedication that this somehow means you gain the Witch class' unique Familiar class ability.
I think you surely do, or stuff like the battle oracle call to arms focus spell wouldn't work at all.Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).Many tables assume you start battle with a Reaction available, though yeah, it's kinda odd that the minor benefit would incur such a severe deficit. Sometimes I think people look at the Battle Oracle's War Cry and determine you must get resctions before your turn because the Mystery spell is a reaction that triggers off of You're about to Roll Initiative, so the GM has to allow that reaction before the turn else negate the entire focus spell. It should have been a free action like they ultimately made the Ways. Aberrant features don't redefine the default assumptions of the game. That the "GM determines" that the Battle Oracle gets their initiative modifying reaction before their turn starts doesn't mean every rogue gets Nimble Dodge and every fighter gets Attack of Opportunity before their turn starts as the default state of Encounter Mide. ...and to at least tie this subdiscussion back to this thread original question, aberrant features that don't fit the subordinate action rules neither redefine the subordinate action rules. Their specific idiosyncrasies exist within themselves.
Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).Many tables assume you start battle with a Reaction available, though yeah, it's kinda odd that the minor benefit would incur such a severe deficit. I can understand how this becomes the local status quo, but it's a GM choice. Default is no reactions until your turn starts.
Sometimes I think people look at the Battle Oracle's War Cry and determine you must get resctions before your turn because the Mystery spell is a reaction that triggers off of You're about to Roll Initiative, so the GM has to allow that reaction before the turn else negate the entire focus spell. It should have been a free action like they ultimately made the Ways. Regardless, you definitely don't have Reactions while rolling initiative (barring some wacky feature) to interrupt things triggering off the initiative roll.
Way of the Pistolero is a complicated example. It is a free action taken when you roll initiative so nobody can AOO it (barring some other screwy initiative feature).
(4) Action is a unit of currency that can be spent to perform Actions or Activities during Encounter Mode.
I agree with Unicore in that interrogating the Subordinate Actions rules isn't going to yield a universal decoder for any Action/Activity published in PF2's lifespan, and that when things in the rules--even from the CRB--don't match the Subordinate Action rules nor exempt or explain the rule, then the issue is with the specific ability or feature.
On the question of whether MSS erases the AOO on an Interact, it was written to be used with any ranged attack. If I have a belt full of daggers and draw them to throw in MSS stance, I would expect the drawing of the dagger to trigger applicable Reactions. If I had a heavy crossbow, I would expect loading the heavy crossbow to trigger applicable Reactions. So the existence of Mobile Shot Stance an whether or not AOOs on an Interact makes the feat "pointless" is not an argument about, well, anything. I don't think MSS was designed to let you load your weapon without risking a Reaction. It's bigger benefit--making AOOs with loaded ranged weapons--doesn't even work with bows as they are never loaded until you are actively striking with them. It looks like more of a crossbow/firearm feat (and yes, I know it's in the Archer archetype, but the feat is written weapon agnostic).
I’m playing an Armor Inventor/Wizard for SoT. If you go Magus, you will probably want to stick to Wizard for the free archetype. Champion/Wizard doesn’t need to be MAD. Use spells that don’t require spell attacks or saves. E.g., true strike. It think that if I went Champion, I would leave heavy into the Magaambya archetypes as they become available.
If they ever errata it, it would be much clearer if it was either: “. . . up to a maximum of 2.” Or “. . . up to your maximum.” Whichever was intended.
It says it's 0 Interact actions. It doesn't say that. It says the entry can be 0 if the reloading (and therefore Interact) is part of the strike. Weapons with a Reload entry of "--" have no reload/Interact as part of their use. If it meant that 0 meant no reloading occurs, they would have said, "It can be 0 if reloading is not necessary" or some such. Nobody has said anything new in the past hundred+ posts. Only new people have joined to repeat arguments of either side that have been said a plethora of times each. The newest thing is the release of repeating weapons with a reload entry of 0, which some people have pointed to as evidence that you don't interact when you reload a bow. However, that argument fails because repeating weapons have the Repeating trait, which explicitly states that the reloading occurs "automatically" until the ammunition in the magazine runs out. The designers painted themselves into a corner with porting over the old PF1 terminology and symbols for ranged weapons and likely were not even thinking how the phrasing of the Reload entry might interact with Grapple. The AOO is easy: both actions occur simultaneously, you only get one bite of the apple, so shooting a bow can only trigger an AOO/reaction once by whichever means. Mobile Shot Stance is poorly worded so that it can encompass a variety of weapons, including thrown.
What I believe Rysky is saying is that the rules are different in the Beginner Box. The Beginner Box does not use the Core Rule Book. Very similar but not the same. Not owning the Beginner's Box, I couldn't tell you what the rules for Force Bolt are in that ruleset. If it's a discrepancy between those rules and the pregen, then go with the rules from the Beginner's Box. EDIT: The PF2 official/Core Rulebook-based Ezren pregen does not have Force Bolt.
As someone who started playing back in the 80’s, the idea of saving spell slots for the right encounter(s) while playing the dart-throwing trap-finder in the interim was just something every wizard did. Kids these days are spoiled with all these spell slots and cantrips. One! One first level spell per day is what we had and we were grateful for it! And you know what happened when we spent that spell? We continued on like real adventures and didn’t go try to find a soft bed to lie in and get our full beauty rest after a three round fight. No, we pushed on and waited for that extra 1000 experience points the wizard needed over any other basic class, 2500 in total, to get that precious second 1st level spell. Thats how real wizards were made; grinding slowly and miserably up in suffering dedication.And all that with 4 maximum HP, if you were lucky - while going straight to 'dead' if you ever hit 0. And if you missed a session, your character fell behind! Milestone leveling? What's with all this coddling. ;)
I agree there's no point for the Aura trait on spells.
"Issues" is the present indefinite tense. It is neither an opinion nor a goal, leaving it either a repeated action or universal truth. In both cases, the emanation ends when it is no longer issuing from your space. Ergo, if it has a duration, it must continue to issue from your space to continue in an existent state. Again, pedantically.
The difference between letting the sniper automatically go first and running the game in encounter mode but having no one be ready for a fight until the sniper makes their move is kind of one without a real distinction. Here's the distinctions. Scenario A Initiative: Sniper has highest initiative and has LOS to target Sniper
Combat begins with the Sniper Scenario B Initiative: Sniper has highest initiative but has no LOS to target and the PCs successfully lure the Boss into LOS with Deception. PC 1 (reaction available)
Combat begins with Sniper Delaying, PC 1 uses Deception/Strides/Steps, Boss Strides and whatever else he would do during a face to face negotiation, PC 1 and Boss both have their reactions available now, and then Sniper acts. Scenario C Initiative: Sniper has middling initiative and PC 1 succeeds Deception check. PC 1 (reaction available)
Combat begins with PC 1 using Deception and whatever other actions, Boss and NPC 2 do whatever they would do during face to face negotiations, including spending their turn talking, PC 2 and PC 3 delay until Sniper fires. Sniper fires. PC 1, Boss, and NPC 2 have reactions available. Scenario D Initiative: Sniper has middling initiative and PC 1 fails Deception check. PC 1 (reaction available)
Combat begins with PC 1 using Deception and whatever other actions, Boss does whatever he would do upon detecting the deception, which may include Sense Motive to determine what the PC's true intent is, withdrawing, attacking, all sorts of things happen before the Sniper gets to fire. Versus Scenario E: "It doesn't matter if we just start with the Sniper because all the PCs delay" Boss
Boss and NPC 2 got no actions and PC 1, 2, and 3 get to conserve all of their actions. TLDR; Entering encounter mode and rolling initiative rather than starting with the Sniper and having the other PCs delay matters because there are so many different ways the encounter could play out besides the PCs successfully tricking the Boss into LOS and the Sniper shooting first.
Assuming the gunslinger already succeeded his Stealth checks to be hidden, that looks like 1 PC rolling Stealth for Initiative and the rest rolling Deception for Initiative while the opponents are probably rolling Perception (or maybe Diplomacy or Deception, themselves). If the gunslinger rolls poorly, the people above them in Initiative simply use up their 3 actions on talking, though a failed Deception check on the distracting character(s) part might set some of the opponents to Seek with one or two of their actions.
The point I was pedantically making was that if the definition of an emanation is that it issues forth from your space, a non-instantaneous emanation must, by definition, move with you in order to continue to issue forth from your space.
That is built into a lot of scenarios, though. Especially ones using Discovery and Influence. Sometimes saying the right thing gives you a bonus, saying the wrong thing gives you a penalty, and saying something irrelevant doesn't even get the NPC's attention.In 10 years of society play I have yet to encounter any scenario which contains EXPLICIT language that says “the player must use these words” to be permitted to roll this diplomacy or influence check. In contrast, I have played and run a lot that list topics to bring up in the social interaction and instruction to the effect on the roll.
This has been touched on a few times. It might be that Shaman needs to be a new, more generic class (but since they like single-noun class names, I don't know what it would be) where the subclasses reflect several different classes that negotiate with entities/spirits for abilities. E.g., Animists, pactbinders, and mediums could all play off the same "spell slot currency" class as subclasses that manifest differently and have different spell lists. Animists (primal), pactbinders (divine), mediums (occult), etc.
We definitely need an official clarification on this by the devs Do we though? Was looking up emanations for another reason. An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell's emanation radiates 5 or more feet outward from the caster. Because the sides of a creature's space are the starting point for the emanation, an emanation from a Large or larger creature affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature. Unless the text states otherwise, the creature creating an emanation effect chooses whether the creature at its center is affected. If it is defined to be issuing from your space, it can't exist on its own. The aura trait seems potentially redundant, at least in the context of spells/temporary effects.
|
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 2,351 posts (22,766 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 70 Organized Play characters. 32 aliases. 
