Chiyoko's page

First off, a thank you to the Development Team is in order for actually giving us a ruling generally covering the "do you get a reflex save when Create Pit is initially cast if you're immobile" question. So many FAQ requests go unanswered, so a hearty "thank you" goes out for at least giving us some precedent for those interested in "RAI" in making rules-lawyering discussions.

Secondly: This is not a thread meant to complain about said ruling. Even though I don't agree it was the BEST possible ruling with regards to setting precedents, it is what it is and it's official.

Those caveats out of the way, here are my questions about a fundamentally different corner case involving Create Pit and reflex saves. One I haven't seen brought up in the lengthy discussions on this general topic in either thread, so I felt this warranted a new thread entirely.

What if, instead of simply being paralyzed as posited in the FAQ'd question, one is rooted in place and unable to move, miraculously or otherwise, to outside the AoE? Consider a target standing on terrain that was affected by Stone to Mud, and then back from Mud to Stone after a hostile sunk up to his knees and ended up very firmly locked in place. (or perhaps was simply entangled and rooted, for a less contrived example)

Does the floor of the AoE become magically lowered to be the floor of the pit? I'd suspect it does, rather than the floor simply winking out of dimensional reality. I think the sensible ruling in this case is the victim is automatically at the bottom of the pit in such a case, which would be a net effect of having been safely placed at the bottom of the pit and avoiding any fall damage. However, in the more advanced Pit spells like Acid Pit and Hungry Pit, this would mean the target is automatically placed in harm's way, which seems counter to the intent of the FAQ.

However, in going with the spirit of the FAQ, giving the rooted victim a "miraculous" or context-ignoring reflex save is also giving a corresponding (and by RAW, "undeserved" or out of turn) additional save to simultaneously escape whatever effect was rooting him in the first place.

Thoughts?

Using a scroll is like casting a spell for the purposes of arcane spell failure chance.

Now I presume that using divine scrolls is like casting divine spells and so no arcane spell failure is possible. However in PFS I don't get to presume so I'm looking for clarification as to whether that's a correct assumption, or if the sentence is saying that ALL spell casting off of scrolls incurs spell failure chances.

Furthermore, for PFS we have an added wrinkle in the special rules regarding Potions, Scrolls, and Wands section in the PFSGOP (beginning on page 20 of the current/season 8 version).

We do away with the distinction between divine and arcane spells, and we also do away with the distinction between classes for the purposes of the same spell being on multiple class lists.

So, if a Cleric wants to cast Summon Monster (fill in the variable) off of a scroll, does he or does he not incur arcane spell failure chances?
(I'm guessing No, since the scroll can be assumed to be a divine cleric scroll in his hands whilst the same scroll would then be an arcane wizard scroll in a wizard's hands..)

More complex, what about an armored fighter using UMD on that same scroll? Spell failure check or no?

Edit: Perhaps the answer lies in which stat the Fighter has (or successfully duplicates via UMD) for casting the scroll?

Are you a fan of the political shenanigans involved in claiming the Iron Throne?

Are you intrigued by a setting where dragons are historical fact but now presumed to be extinct?

Would you love to be part of a game where you lead a powerful family against its rivals?

I'm not talking about anything by GRRM... this isn't A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones.. but the old AD&D setting: Birthright!

In Birthright you play the heads of powerful factions: Kingdoms, Churches, Thieves' Guilds, etc. It's a game much less about the usual concerns involving adventurers but moreso about, well, a game of thrones :)

I've run two Birthright campaigns in the past; I think that PbP would actually be a brilliant format to revisit the game for a third go.

If you're interested in participating in a PbP Birthright game here, let me know your thoughts about:

What edition you prefer.. it's written for 2nd/AD&D and WOTC never supported it once they took over, but it's got fairly significant fan support. An entire 3rd edition conversion has been fan-written, and that can in turn be used to adapt the game for Pathfinder. And there's always 5th edition D&D as well, which I keep hearing great things about.

What part of Cerilia you'd like the game to be set: Both campaigns I've run were set in southern Anuire.. It'd be neat to see different parts of Cerilia that don't quite resemble Westeros so much, but then again I don't mind going for the trifecta, either.

You have arrived for an arranged meeting with meet each other at a nice inn catering to samurai clientele. The occasion: Celebrating the Bon Festival together. On this, the last night of the Month of the Dog, spirits of the dead walk Rokugan. Ancestors seek out the homes of their descendants to look in on them, but so too do malevolent spirits. On this night, families come together and set up two shrines: one where prayers give thanks to their ancestors that watch over them, and the second where offerings are given to the spirits who have no descendants to honor them.

In the City of Lies, the normally solemn festival has evolved to become a boisterous, party atmosphere. The whole city comes together to honor and appease the spirits of the dead. Costumes, fireworks, dancing, and parades will fill the night, straight through from dusk until dawn.

It is nearly the end of the hour of the Monkey (5:30 PM) and the excitement in the city builds as the sun recedes towards the horizon. The rising excitement of the city’s residents has an almost tangible quality as the shadows cast by houses and storefronts lengthen to drown the streets in darkness. A few costumed commoners can already be seen getting an early start on the festivities by chasing one another.

The Inn of the Orange Blossom is on the busy intersection of Saffron Street and Brass Avenue, located just about equidistant to the Gate of Condescension (Location 9), the Bridge of Drunken Lovers (Location 16) and the magnificent Dragon Gate (Location 10). This neighborhood is part of the Merchant Quarter, but is very wealthy owing to its proximity to both the waterfront and the Nobles’ Quarter.

The Inn is quaint (by local standards) and warm. There are colorful banners and flowers prominently displayed in honor of tonight’s Bon Festival. There are a few rooms upstairs, and tables downstairs where travelers and city residents gather. As it is customary in an establishment such as this one, you leave your katanas and scroll satchels in a special and discrete niche that exists for the purpose of denying sake-addled samurai the temptation of utilizing their most lethal instruments.

The master of the Inn is a jovial merchant named Hametsu. He is a Unicorn Clan member of the Heimin caste, and thus below samurai. The Inn’s popularity owes largely to Hametsu’s charm. He regales his guests with fantastical tales about the Clan’s adventures beyond the known world. Everyone knows he wasn’t alive to personally partake in these tales since the Unicorns have been settling back into their proper place in Rokugan for the past two centuries, but his improbable stories are popular nonetheless.

Hametsu recognizes those of you who are regulars. "Ah, welcome once again to my humble establishment! I have a private room reserved for your party, just as you asked!"

Welcome to the game!

I'm putting feelers out there to see what interest there is in another Legend of the Five Rings pbp game.

About me:
I've played/ran L5R's RPG incarnations ever since the beginning. I'm pretty firmly set on running this game under the 4th edition (current) ruleset.

I've GM'd various other game systems for even longer, and some non-face-to-face GMing as admins on a few MU*'s back when they were A Big Thing. This will be my first PbP game, however.

I want to get my feet wet with a published L5R adventure, "Night of One Thousand Screams". And if it goes well, continue on with a sort of "The Shield: Ryoko Owari" campaign.

However, that desire requires the pre-Scorpion Coup timeline, and the common L5R fare of playing magistrates. I recognize this theme/locale might be trite for some players, or simply not suit their tastes.

Therefore I'm also willing to entertain the idea of a sandbox campaign that can be set whenever, wherever.

A project I've been thinking about undertaking for some time is going through every PFS scenario I have and analyzing how often each skill is used. I've never done it because it seems like it'd be a ton of work just to prove something I already know: PFS scenarios reward investment in some skills more than others.

It's obviously a no brainer that Perception is more useful in PFS than Knowledge/Nobility or Appraise. I'm making this thread because I'm firmly of the belief that it shouldn't be. I believe that it shouldn't be so obviously true that the two most important skills in PFS are Perception and Diplomacy.

I also put forth the notion that it doesn't have to be that way; it's a paradigm of how the scenarios are being written and that can change. Early seasons had the faction missions carrying the weight for bringing obscure skills into play more often.

Look at the legwork phase of almost every scenario ever. What do you know about the BBEG's fortress? Anyone have Knowledge/Geography or Knowledge/History? Noone has them? No worries, because Knowledge/Local gives you the info anyway. Knowledge skills other than Arcana and Local are disincentivized because you can pretty much assume info relevant to the plot will be awarded anyway.

Of course, where skills are disincentivized while skill points stay the same, then by necessity other skills are artificially incentivized. Namely, the same ones that keep coming up over and over and over again.

I'm curious to see what thoughts are out there. Personally, I'd like to see Perception go back to 3.0 and be split into Search and Spot, but that's not feasible for PFS.

A few things I do as a GM to deal with extant scenarios that encourage what I perceive as skill specialization born of meta considerations (in other words, if I have players' characters possessing reasonably rounded skills, these managing techniques aren't necessary):

Knowledge/Local in pre-adventuring legwork: Even though K/Local usually gives the info anyway, I ask for the other specified knowledge skills first. Only after those are resolved do I admit "ok, everyone with local roll.." to see if a better result pops up.

Perception (searches): I don't let the one guy with +23 to Perception "search the whole room" for the party. I encourage each player to pick an area or aspect of the room to search, and only the player(s) who picked the area for a hidden thing even get to roll a meaningful check. I even reward people who cleverly deduce where to search based on the box text to find without even having to roll. Way to go gamer, listen to the clues and don't rely on a skill bonus to do your thinking for you. You automatically succeed even if you had a +0 to Perception b/c you searched in the right place and there it was.

Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.

I'm currently prepping this.

I can't resist but pointing out that the writer missed an obvious gem.

While the PCs are having their social encounter with Praetor to convince him of their worthiness, Amersanus should have totally reminded him Pathfinders are called "murder hobos" for a reason...

Given Mike Brock's ruling about electronic character sheets, and specifically the reasoning behind said ruling, I have a followup question/discussion prompt.

Can a PFS GM disallow electronic die rolling programs and/or require actual dice to be used? Personally, I'd love to be allowed to do so as I have no way of knowing how rigged a die rolling program is. Rigged dice can at least be potentially spotted. Can I use the "I get to review any die roll" prerogative combined with the "I don't want to touch your device lest I break it and be responsible" out, is that kosher?

So, the former leader of the Taldor faction and current leader of the Sovereign Court has what I consider a shibboleth of a name.

How, exactly, does one pronounce "Morilla". Does it rhyme with tortilla, or gorilla?

Consider: She is in fact of the conventional Taldan aristocracy, and as such her name should not be anomalous to the regular conventions of the Taldane language. As a reminder, Taldane is in fact the proper name for the "common tongue" in the Inner Sea.

So, this question is really about the flavor of Taldane/Common. Does it follow English sensibilities, or Latin/Romance? I think there are solid OOC reasons to assume English, yet equally solid IC reasons to assume Latin/Romance.

(this isn't in the faction talk forum because it's ultimately about much more than how to pronounce Lady Morilla's name. It arguably belongs in the Golarion setting forum, now that I think about it)

I'm curious about the opinions of internet denizens. Yes, that's something no sane person would normally admit to, but it is what it is.

So, share with me if you will your opinion on players "taking" names from Golarion canon for their PFS characters.

I'll hold myself up as an initial example. I consider it perfectly reasonable (and at one time original) to have a PFS character who is a member of the Blackros family. But that's only because I deliberately included a backstory about why my character is a Black Sheep of the House and thus not privy to any more pull or knowledge in the plethora of Blackros-themed adventures than any other schmuck Pathfinder Agent.

What are your feelings about that, or other name-hijackings? As another example, my gaming area had a guy who insisted his character was "the" Merisiel. Not Merisiel clone X, but the real McCoy the pregens pretend to be. How would you feel about someone insisting her character is indeed "the" Kyra or "the" Valeros?

What about assuming the identity of a named NPC from canon such as a (presumably redeemed) villain from one of the published scenarios, or maybe even a well known NPC such as Janira Gavix or Kreighton Shaine?

Is it worth the bother of building a Swashbuckler that specializes in a trident? What sorts of things would you do to make up for the diminished crit range and resulting slower rate of recharging panache?

I'm not looking for uber-optimized.. obviously. I want something unique that is still "effective enough" for the standard of PFS scenarios. Plus I've got a perfect mini for a trident wielding swashbuckler that would be a crime not to make use of...

I see no reason a PFS battlemat can't be a hex grid rather than squares.
Call them "6 sided Squares" for the rules lawyers citing the combat and maneuvering rules referencing squares, if necessary.

Am I wrong?

Relevant rule from the Bloody Vengeance feat:

Benefit: If an opponent within line of sight has damaged you within the last minute, you may study that opponent as a standard action. Thereafter, if you hit that opponent with a melee attack, you deal 1 point of bleed damage to that creature in addition to the normal damage dealt by your attack.

"Thereafter" is a heck of a word. I presume its use here effectively means "before the end of that same encounter".

What's less clear is whether or not the ability to cause bleed damage expires after the first hit, or if it too lasts the full duration of "thereafter". Again, presumably no longer than the end of the encounter (in the event that target manages to escape alive)

Will negative energy hit point damage, when successfully affecting an undead target, ALWAYS be converted into a heal? Or are the cases where negative energy healing undead ONLY occurring when rules for those effects explicitly say they can? (and, potentially, are consciously chosen to use that option)

For example, if a Lich attacks a Mummy with its melee attack, does the Lich still have the option to not heal the Mummy by his attack and deal hit point damage as normal?

So last night when I was too sleepy to sleep I fussed around with my Pathfinder books.

I found a cool feat that allowed an Inquisitor to use his willpower in place of strength or dex with his deity's favored weapon.

Now I can't find it. Did I dream it up? What's it called?

To cast a spell when beginning the initiative pass with a 2 handed weapon equipped, I assume one can spend a free action to 'de-equip' it by removing one hand and simply gripping the weapon (as opposed to having it 'equipped') in the other hand. This is done in order to satisfy the free hand requirement for a somatic spell.. as opposed to spending a free action to drop the weapon entirely.

Assuming that's correct, is it still a move action to re-ready/re-equip the weapon prior to making attacks with it?

If so, is that also true for bows?

Are they or aren't they?

One implication to how that question is answered would be whether cavaliers of the same order from very different parts of the world be members of the same organization, or just happen to have cavalier abilities that are mechanically identical? For example, would a Kellid Mammoth Rider and a Lastwall Heavy Cavalryman that are both Order of the Lion Cavaliers recognize the same individual to be the Grand Master of their shared order, or not? Etc.

Page 174, CRB covers damaging objects. Ranged attack damage is halved before applying hardness.
Page 174 goes on to cover Animate Objects, implicitly extending this same rule to them.

However it's not 100% clear this extends to OTHER creatures that are not Animated Objects that also have the hardness rule. (for example, Foo Dogs whilst using their Stone Form ability)

Is it a fair leap to assume that any creature with hardness will use the damaging objects rules (to include implications for ranged attacks and energy typed damage), or are the only creatures those rules are to apply to are Animated Objects?

ref Inner Sea Gods, page 203.
Level 5 ability, Aligned Strike.

It seems that either the Deity's Alignment or the Damage Reduction Ignored table on the chart is upside down. Is this the case?

It's completely counterintuitive that, say, a Lawful Good Deity's Sentinel can ignore DR otherwise requiring Evil to penetrate. It makes you good at killing things like Angels rather than Demons.

The combo:

A small cat animal companion knowing the weapon finesse feat and wearing an amulet of mighty fists +1 (using the bonus for agile weapon quality vice +1 to hit/dam). Rounding out to a 22 Dex at 4th level (aspect of the tiger) and rocking a +7 (+9 with power attack) damage on possibly 3 attacks per round.

Seems all perfectly legit RAW.. although it was a surprise to me that spending 5,000 on a +1 amulet still allowed for agile enhancement to natural weapon(s), even when you have 3 primary attacks.

So, questions. For those of you who believe that game balance takes a backseat to lolz, this thread isn't for you.

For those of you who are still with me, what advice do you have for me? On one hand, I could just ignore it and trust that the uberness won't scale with level. In the meantime so long as no one else at the table shows signs of feeling like a 5th wheel out of the limelight there's no foul, right?

That brings me to the combination of agile + power attack. There's nothing saying they CAN'T work together, yet there's also no reason the GM has to say they HAVE TO work together. PFS OP rules still allow the adjudication of rules interactions, and agile does say that the user is using dex in place of strength, and because PA is based on a STR prereq it can be ruled to count as 'using strength', ergo cannot be used in concert with agile enhancement.

Would making such a ruling be fair or just look like sour grapes? Even if fair, would it really be worth the risk of alienating the player b/c even with PA the performance-beyond-level-appropriateness will only be extended rather than perpetuated?

Another tack is perhaps disallowing the animal-intelligence cat from preferring to use the agile enhancement over the default +1 to hit/dam granted by the magic item?

PFS does not allow house rules.

PFS does however allow GMs to adjudicate a rules interactions.

So, in the case of an Aasimar with a favored class oracle:

Using the ARG alternate favored class benefit for oracle, they can have an effective oracle level of 150% their true oracle level for one revelation.
By choosing Lunar Oracle, they can gain an animal companion as a revelation.

By RAW, they can have an animal companion at 150% power.

Obviously in PFS a GM cannot house rule that players cannot have an animal companion calculated at an effective class level higher than your actual character level.

However a GM is still allowed to 'adjudicate rules interactions'. It's generally considered permissible (at PFS tables) to disallow Dhampirs from being healed by a paladin Lay On Hands, even though the "By RAW" argument there's no reason they couldn't be (LoH is never mentioned to be positive energy). In fact, the "By RAW it's legal" argument is seen as being rules lawyer-y on behalf of the player rather than a GM overstepping his bounds by 'changing the RAW rules".

I'm not trying to rehash that argument; I bring it up because it's precedent that a PFS GM is not required to agree to strict RAW, especially when the GM is insisting that the RAW suffers from omission of a reasonably assumed relevant caveat or clause.

So, is PFS GM within his authority to adjudicate the rules interaction of aasimar oracle favored class and animal companion revelation RAW rules as 'clearly omitted an intended caveat/consideration' about effective oracle level not exceeding true character level?

If not, is a PFS GM then authorized to disallow such an aasimar lunar oracle from being played at a table when his animal companion is appropriate to a character level that is out level for the scenario?

When we sit down at a PFS table, we know in the metagame that all the other characters have memebership in a secret faction and will have an additional secret faction mission above and beyond what the VC has in mind for the expedition.

I find it entertaining to ponder whether this is the case 'in character'. Just because you'll never meet a PC Pathfinder who is not secretly gallivanting for some interest besides the Decemvirate.. does that mean all the NPC Pathfinders are similarly conflicted? The easy knee-jerk answer is 'of course not'.. but what if they WERE?

Whatever the answer is, what implications does this have on how the Decemvirate administrates the Society ICly?

I dunno, seems like a fun topic to think about/discuss.

Title says it all.

Common sense says some of them obviously should be, but the 'foo word' just doesn't seem to appear.

Thread in the Rules Question is here.

Summing up the question... WTF is up with the 3rd level 'Brutal Slash' ability?

RAW, neither Cavaliers nor Samurai may take the archetype.
If you assume they meant that the ability swaps out Cavalier's Charge instead of 'Mounted Charge', then Cavaliers may but Samurai may not take the archetype.

Seems pretty obvious it's a pooch-screw and will eventually be FAQ/Errata'd. Can we get a 'Well in the meantime, the PFS answer is this..."

This has to have been asked and answered at least once, but I apparently just suck at search-fu and there comes a time when it's simpler to just ask the question at large.

In the Bestiaries, when attacks are listed as being in numerical value, what does that exactly mean?

Example:
Tiger's melee is listed as: 2 claws, bite. (omitting the bonuses and damage)

So, if a tiger does NOT make a full attack, how many claw attacks does it make? 1 or 2?

Thanks to any and all for clarification to a stupid question. Equally appreciative to anyone who can point to where I didn't have the sense to look to see the answer in black and white for myself. :)

CRB wrote on inventing one's own spells:
"Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks."

I have to assume that my inability to find anything in PFS saying a GM cannot approve new player-created spells is an oversight, or a lack of ability on my part to really scrutinize everything I should be.

So, I assume that it does in fact fall under the 'anything that says the GM may approve, in PFS he may NOT approve' stance that PFSOP otherwise uses.

And assuming that's correct, has there been any thought towards a mechanism for player-designed spells? I realize that vetting them for sanctioned use, even if only by that player and not by the PFS playerbase at large.. is an enormous problem.

What about letting the players themselves propose new spells, including spellcraft DCs & costs involved, for peer-review? Set some sanity threshhold (perhaps at least X number of players to hit a button saying they'd approve of it) and then most losing ideas are weeded out, leaving potentially a few gems for M&M and/or VC/VL or 4 star GMs or whathaveyou to give final approval for.

Needn't even be approved a whole lot of the time, and would sure be a fun way for players to feel like they've contributed to PFSOP if one of 'their character's' spells becomes approved for use by pathfinders around the world.

So.. are there price changes for smaller or larger sized magic weapons/armor on chronicles? Can you purchase them in any size you want?

Chronicle awards overrule all other rules but they're not ever listed as being sized (that I've seen).. so I don't see why not. Small sized +1 flaming longswords costing the same as medium sized ones isn't a HUGE deal, as it's only a 'couple' gold coins difference at that price scale. It's barely cheaper to just buy a small sized +1 flaming longsword that WASN'T on the chronicle, and it seems a little counter to the intent of a chronicle award, but it is what it is.

So what about when it's more than a 'couple' coins difference? What if, for example, a mwk mithril breastplate were on a chronicle listed available at 4,300gp.. could I buy it as a large sized, non-humanoid version for an animal companion at the same price, when by the book it should cost 8x that?

Looking to see if there's any formal clarification (or reasonably ponderously heavy consensus) about adding under PF rules. Multiplying is codified, as adding multipliers doesn't necessarily intuitively make sense if you use a raw mathematical perspective. (example: double plus double equals triple, NOT quadruple under PF rules)

So similarly, mathematically speaking whether you add then subtract or subtract then add doesn't make any difference.. but it does under pathfinder. Most game systems that bother to codify always seem to agree that one should add then subtract, should the order matter.

PF never says (that I've seen, anyhoo).

Purely esoteric?

Not so much. One practical example: A ranger gets an animal companion at -4 character level. Boon companion treats his level as 4 levels higher.

So, does a ranger (single classed, to make this example clear) get no benefit from the +4 character level, capping at his character level, because he's always at -4 character level? Or does the -4 character level get cancelled out by the +4 character level, allowing the ranger to have a animal companion equal to his level?

Lots of other interactions are possible, this is NOT purely a ranger/boon companion thread.

I've seen it mentioned that Paizo's PFS staff view the pool of retired lvl 12 characters, at least in the context of knowing how often to publish retirement arcs/events.

It got me thinking. In my limited experience, about 1/3 of my sessions I've played went unreported.. or at least not showing up on my character's PFS portfolio, anyway. Not to call out GMs in my area.. I'm just assuming that's somewhat normal.

So, how does Paizo KNOW when a character has hit level 12 or is retired? There's a way for GMs to report a permanent death, but not a way to show 'going out of circulation' while NOT dying.

I've got a session where it won't give me the option on picking what module/scenario my table played. All I can do is fill in the characters' numbers, but cannot report what it is they played (in this case, Feast of Ravenmoor).

Is this the sort of thing a 'wait and try again tomorrow' might fix or do I need the assistance of Paizo's Web Gnomes to report the event now?

Let's say you have a class that gets +0 BAB at first level, but you want a feat that requires +1 BAB such as Exotic Weapon Prof, or Power Attack.

Must you wait till your 3rd level pick, or can you let your 1st level feat go unselected until 2nd level, when you have that +1BAB?

My search fu only turned up one thread about this question in the General Pathfinder Rules forum, and all that was agreed upon was that RAW, it doesn't say that you must pick immediately, but neither does it say that you can hold the feat and select later... and that the GM at your table will have the final word.

So.. that can't be the answer for PFS.. since what one GM allows another may not. What's the rule interpretation for organized play?

I'm looking at the possibilities of a Dhampir Cleric using negative energy to simultaneously heal his party and nuke the opposition.

Some relevant rules:

So, with a decent charisma bonus and the Selective Channel feat, you can prevent harm coming to your party during your Negative Energy spammage. You can also use the Undead SubDomain touch to even let one (or more, at higher levels) partymates be HEALED by the nuke spam.

Is it too one-dimensional to be of viable use? Even with this setup, is a negative energy cleric just not a decent healer?

I'd like to make sure I'm making all the correct assumptions on pricing for PFS play.

Bullets cost 1gp/per (UC)
Gunsmithing feat allows for making your own bullets (with a gunsmithing kit) for 1/10th the price.. or 10 bullets per gp (UC)
PFS Additional Resources confirms reduced price for bullets.

Magical missiles are priced per batch of 50, but (this is my big assumption) don't have to be bought in batches of 50.

1/50th of +1 enhancement is 40g for 1 +1 bullet.
1/50th of a +2 enhancement is 80g for 1 +2 bullet.

so, if I wanted to buy a +1 bullet of humanbane (+2 enhancement equivalence) it costs 80g and 1sp? or I could buy 10 of them for 801g?

Furthermore, such a magic bullet can use a normal charge of black powder.. same stuff as completely nonmagical bullets.. yes?

What happens when a player does something that has, in the opinion of the GM at the table, done something with long term and decidedly negative implications to his character? What permanent authority does a GM have over the player's character/chronicles?

Example: Paladin or Druid does something that is against their class code. Rules say they lose powers.
Assumption: GM annotates the deviation & whether an atonement has since been acquired.
Question: Is it being a 'Richard' to go beyond marking it in tiny little text in the 'conditions gained' text, so that future GMs don't miss out and erroneously let the paladin/druid use their powers again without having paid for atonement, based on your opinion that they should have lost them?
Question2: What if a player has such a mark, and you disagree with the earlier GM that the offense was worthy of loss of class powers.. you could give a free atonement, but can you annull the offense? (make it so that it never even happened so that atonement was never necessary)

Evil and alignment examples:

Example 1: In the GM's opinion, a character performs one or more evil acts.
Question: Should a 'track record' of evil be established/maintained? Are alignments effectively meaningless in PFS? What happens if a character is evil in every meaningful measure, but simply listed as 'neutral' on the character sheet?

Example 2: A sorcerer (or other class with limited spell options) knows a spell with the EVIL descriptor.
Question: Since casting an evil spell is one of the very few things that are spelled out in the rules as an unarguably evil act, may a GM restrict its use at his table? May a GM force the player to even pick a new spell or prematurely retire the character, based on his interpretation that repeated evil acts (casting evil spells) REQUIRES an evil alignment, which is not compatable with PFS OP?

Because of these problems, is it better for a GM to just out and out disallow any actions that he would have otherwise thought deserved permanent, negative effects?

Thanks to any long-timers who can share their experiences or opinions.

Interesting blog here.

Since it's not on the PFS Addtl resources, is it an understandable 'tweak' to allow clerics of the death or souls subdomain to swap out Animate Dead (a spell no cleric of Pharasma should ever have access to) for Speak with dead, as suggested in paizo's own blog?

RAI sometimes trumps RAW, seems this is an understandable example of allowing something that isn't on the PFS approved list (but 'RAI' should be) to be allowed at a PFS table?

Anyone know of a resource that details Absalom down to great detail? The context is a Chelish Diva PC that wants to use the city as her home turf for the Famous ability, as opposed to some obscure town off somewhere that will never prove relevant in PFS OP.

Surely at 1st level you can't claim the whole city, but I don't see any reason why you can't have the turf centered on some opera house and eventually expand to that entire district, then a few districts, then tne entire city eventually.

As reasonable as that idea sounds to me, it brings me to my original question. Anyone know of anything that lists the canonical populations of neighborhoods/districts of Absalom?

I'm assuming there is no such resource (at that level of detail) so that raises an anticipated question.. how best to handle a Chelish Diva based in Absalom for PFS? Assume some GM determined, but arbitrary % chance any given scenario set in Absalom that the Diva's Fame has preceeded her?

I've asked a rules question here and all that was agreed upon until the thread died and drifted down into the archives is that one would expect table variation based on that GM's opinion.

When that happens, in general, is there a guidline for a PFS GM?
Specifically, in this case, what with all the future Dhampirs PFS is going to be seeing in OP due to the BBB boon.. some are bound to be in a position to be Laid Upon by Paladins (the healy way, not the carnal way). Heck, some Dhampirs may want to BE paladins.

If we can't get a Pathfinder-wide ruling, can we get a PFS OP ruling? Or must we settle for variation from table to table, as a GM opines?

The PFS OP Additional Resources page for Inner Sea World guide does not list Elves (aquatic or vanilla) or page 25. This appears to imply that the aquatic elves are banned, by omission.

Next consider the reskinning rule.

Does this combination mean that in PFS OP one cannot say that their elf is an aquatic elf, even if they use PFS approved sources?

For example, can one build an elf PC, take the 'Spirit of the Waters' alternate racial quality to get 'as close as possible' to actually having rules as being an aquatic elf, and 'reskin' your elf to have the appearance of an aquatic elf & have a back-history of coming from the bottom of the sea? (even though, awkwardly, this character can't breathe water...)

So what happens when a paladin does a LoH on a subject with Negative Energy Affinity? LoH never says it is positive energy, just that it is an (apparently untyped) healing power. Seems crystal clear that RAW a LoH will heal the target.. whether it is alive, undead, or subject to negative energy affinity, or some mix of the three.

But I can see a RAI argument that LoH is 'supposed' to be positive energy, despite that omission from the LoH rules.

So where does that leave, for example, a Dhampir Paladin? Can she use LoH on herself w/o causing damage? I'd assume she can.. but curious to see what opinions are.

Is the ancient Jistka language used in Golarion in similar ways as Latin was in Europe's recent centuries? I.E., language of academia, diplomacy, etc? I got that impression from the ever-so-brief description of languages in the Inner Sea World Guide, but I've seen little to support that interpretation elsewhere... particularly in that no scholarly/clergy/noble NPCs ever seem to know the language.

I'm looking at starting a new PFS OP character with the BBB racial boon- I'm posting here because I'm looking for actual rules advice.

I thought a dhampir paladin might be fun (despite the risk of being referred to as 'sparkly'). I've been wanting to start a paladin anyway, and what the heck, they get a bonus to +CHA so why not.

All was well until I saw

Ouch. I can live not casting Cure Wounds on myself, but having to have my own potions/scrolls/wands of CAUSE wounds for use on myself could be a bit of a bother, but them's the breaks you pay for playing something weird. (here, use this to keep me alive.. but, uh, don't mix it up with the other wand and use it on someone else! O.o)

I looked at the wording of lay on hands next.

Now it's plain as day that LoH is intended to be positive energy, since it works exactly like it. However it never says it is. RAW, a character/creature with Negative Energy Affinity can use Lay on Hands to heal himself?

Assuming that train of thought is shenanigans or debatable at best, is there a feat out there to 'reverse polarity' on divine energy? ( doubt it, or else there'd be paladins using 'Harm Touch' offensive attacks or such)

I'm not looking for a power-build, just looking to see if there are ways to build a viable dhampir paladin :) Sadly I'm not seeing much that won't provoke arguments or accusations of rules-lawyering, am I missing something more elegant?

So, I've seen it mentioned by Paizo that at least one particular concern about reskinning is whether people might abuse it to bring in themes that are inappropriate for golarion/pathfinder/D&D/fantasy. One specific fear that was used as an example was making a sword look like a lightsaber.

That fear of 'star wars in golarion' is what this thread is about. And any other inappropriate themes for the setting. So, since we're going to some lengths to protect the integrity of the flavor of our PFS OP scenarios (both for participants' immersion in the setting, and also out of consideration for Paizo's legal implications).. does this also extend to what a player may name his character?

A player cannot have a fighter with a lightsaber, but can he name his character "Luke Skywalker"? if not, how is this enforced? Does the character database make him pick another name? Is the GM at a table expected or empowered to make him pick a new one?

What about a name that is not involving intellectual property, but is still unquestionably inappropriate for the setting? Can that fighter be named "Diesel"? May a mount be named "Turbo"?

My third example isn't hypothetical.. it's something someone in my own circle is doing ;D If you play a pregen, can you just keep the name of that iconic for your character after you register your PC? For example, can there be an infinite number of Merisiels running around out there in PFS OP? Personally, I always thought that having a pregen at the table was indeed playing with THE iconic, but I know it doesn't say that anywhere so I can certainly grant that I could be reading too much into that one.

So.. since in PFS OP you can't just wing something with your GM, just how does the nuts and bolts of this rule actually work, spelled out without any need for interpretation? Particuarly, what counts as a 'banner' and how much is a PC supposed to pay for it?

PFS OP has recently brought in a stress on asian-inclusiveness. Has anyone noticed a sashimono (samurai back-banners) being listed as equipment, and if so, a reference? I assume this would have to meet any and all criteria for the cavalier banner rule perfectly.

What about having a crest painted on a shield? Would the 'clearly visible' clause allow for it to still apply if the shield were slung across the back whilst fighting with a two-handed weapon? Would the shield have any prerequisites on quality? (ie, can a non-masterwork/magic shield be called 'your banner')

The iconic cavalier appears to simply have a pennant attached to his lance. Mebbe I'm assuming too much here but I imagine that's his cavalier's banner. Would carring a banner in this way (non-equipped lance poking up from your back/hip like a flagpole) satisfy the rules?
If so, what about the 99% of the time when he's dismounted.. can the lance be carried solely to 'display the banner'?

Is there any 'writer's intent' that a Cavalier must devote a free hand to 'equiping' a banner in order to benefit from this rule? I don't see one.. but you never know what some people will insist on..

Do those fromage-flavored halfing cavaliers still have to possess/display a banner that is at least as big as they are in order to benefit from it? Or one just as big to them as small sized is relative to a medium sized cavalier? (to be fair, Alain's flaccid, stringy pennant really seems to be just squeaking by on the 'at least small sized' clause)

Assuming a sashimono or shield-crest is not an option and a banner must be some sort of freely waving flag-like cloth item, does it come for free as part of the class ability? It would seem to me that it should, since no cost is listed nor is there one listed anywhere I've seen for a vanity type heraldry-braggy banner. if it comes for free, what are the restrictions on replacing it should it be lost/soiled? If it's not free and no cost is listed, what cost should be paid?

EDIT: Wouldn'tchaknow you think of another one after hitting 'submit post'?
Does 'freely visible' mean that the banner must be displayed above the head of the cavalier? if so, does this mean that he has an extra 5' of ceiling intolerance while benefitting from a banner?

Looking for any helpful advice or thoughts about making a pistol-wielding sorcerer (love them Iron Kingdoms minis).

I believe that the PFS OP skews character builds somewhat.. you don't need to be munchkinized to be successful on missions- so 'non-optimal' isn't necessarily a bad thing.

1st level gunslinger, then rest in sorcerer: If I want to be using a firearm, this seems the easiest way. Gunsmithing & Proficiency for free, leaving point blank shot tree feats available at first level. The mysterious stranger archetype even lets you use charisma for grit.

straight-class sorcerer: takes sorcerers long enough to get higher level spells, slowing it down a level really exacerbates the difference between casting classes. Assuming human 2 feats at first, I can get gunsmithing & point blank at 1st, and suffer -4 non-prof penalty until 3rd level and the exotic weapon feat. Puts rapid reload off till a very distant 5th level, however.

is one markedly better than another? are there other, better ideas? (like mebbe a wizard or witch instead of sorcerer?) thanks all for any thoughts

The new reskinning rule only references AC/Mounts and items.

I'm not sure that vanities would count as items, and they're clearly not AC/Mounts. Not even the caravan! :D

I'd think that there's an argument to be had to extend no-reskinning to vanities, but I hope not. I mean, what's the big benefit to giving the chance for Profession:Barkeep or Profession:Scribe to get +1 to day job checks when others can't spend the same PP for the same benefit?

I suppose if free reskins would be allowed you'd have potential abuses such as 'improper' professions such as Profession: Sith Lord and his reskinned vanity described as 'not being a moon' in some pocket demi-plane.. But still feels awful random and partial for Profession and Perform skills to be listed as haves and have-nots. Doubly so since the Craft vanity works on any craft skill, not just 1 or two explicity specified.

Here's to hoping more vanities come at a steady (if slow) trickle from the faucet of Paizo dev's production desk :)

I've been scouring the PFS OP ruleset (heh, some of you know why ;) and I'm going mad because I can't find another little project of mine...

I've been trying to find where I once saw the provisions for Wizards/Witches/Etc learning new spells between adventures. Or perhaps it was only upon level up. Could have sworn though there was a way to do it every chronicle, though.

Not talking about the scribing from scrolls or other found spellbooks. I mean the learning of spells that comes even if you never ever find any books/scrolls.

Can anyone point out where I'm missing it? thanks!

So, I'm fully aware of the new reskinning rule. My question is whether a stance I'm inclined to take is really all that bad, despite being against the letter of the new rule.

here's the sitch: A regular fixture at my PFS OP circle is a father and daughter who play together. The daughter is 12 and enjoys the roleplaying but really doesn't find the minutae of rules to be engaging. Her character is a druid and has now gone through 4 chronicles with an animal companion re-skinned as a baby/pygmy (medium size) elephant.

I'm aware that this is now no longer legal but 'Peanut' (her AC, obviously) is one of if not the favorite thing of hers about playing pathfinder. Furthermore, she never actually USES the animal companion other than to place a miniature on the mat and to excitedly tell the other players about it. Seriously.. the one time I put peanut in danger and had the baddies opine about whether elephants taste like bacon, I thought she was nearly to tears.

So what can possibly become of enforcing the no reskinning rule? It would sincerely kill this girl's enjoyment of Pathfinder.. quite realistically turning off a future gamer (girl gamer, at that.. how many can we afford to lose! ;) In addition to rather pointlessly (imo) degrading the enjoyment of this player, her father would also certainly have a less than glowing view of such a crackdown. I mean seriously.. let the dude enjoy it while he can, his daughter is likely to be 'too cool' to play RPGs with her dad before much longer, in all likelyhood. What sort of soulless evil would cut that short?

A plan I think I'll suggest when we next meet is to call peanut a simple (but reskinned) non-combat pet, seeing as how she can't bear to expose it to any risk anyway. Use the lack of an AC (again, since she's not using it anyway) to take up a new spell domain and call it a happy (if still technically illegal) compromise.

I'm curious as to what opinions would be on NPCs using social skills on PCs should be handled in PFS OP. I don't think anyone questions that a player is expected to roleplay a character who fails his sense-motive to believe an NPC's lie told with a bluff check- you set your metagame info aside, set your personal gut feelings aside, and find another tack if you're dead set on what you want to do.. but you 'man up' and accept that your character doesn't detect the lie and you game on. Just as if you roll to hit and miss, you don't endlessly recalculate and argue the modifiers.. you accept the miss and press on.
I'll say that I believe that if one can accept bluff being used on characters to force a player to deal with his character doing something he doesn't want to (believe a lie), I think diplomacy and intimidate (as in, not the in-combat demoralize action) should as well.

First of all, I'm aware that many players (on either side of the GM screen) don't feel players should lose control of their characters on the basis of a skill check.

I'm on the other side, saying that if a spell can cause a player's character to do something not in jive with a player's wishes, there's no difference if a skill check does the same. I don't bring this up to make it the argument of the thread- I only intend to demonstrate that I'm aware that my position before posing the rules question isn't going to even be shared by all from the get go.

So that controversy aside, what are the pitfalls particular to PFS OP in subjecting the players to the same medicine they give to the NPCs?

As a new PFS GM, one of my primary concerns is that there's some ruling somewhere that I don't know about that renders the way I want to run a table moot. I know to check the OP resources as well as the FAQ but I don't know what I don't know... I guess I'm looking for assurance that there's nothing saying a GM CAN'T have a NPC use social skills on a party member.

However the 'no pvp in PFS excepting....' clause makes this a PFS OP question rather than a rules forum question. Obviously choices about whether/who to attack in a combat situation is going to need magic compulsion.. let's be clear that noone is suggesting that if BBEG uses intimidate on the party fighter and makes him 'friendly', that the fighter will be compelled to attack the rest of the party. THAT sort of pvp clearly needs magic to force it.

However if NPC A is the target of a faction mission (say to steal something of hers or force her to agree to extortion). As soon as she gets a bad feeling from Pathfinders of that faction she uses diplomacy on a not-so-threatening PC (one who is not on the same mission) to 'protect her' from the dark intentions of his partymates- now we're talking about that character's player being compelled to stand in the way of the others' faction mission- which counts as PvP in PFS OP.

I'm looking for opinions as to whether that is kosher at an OP table. My instinct is yes, but I'm more used to home games than the OP play and value the perspective of those who've seen and done more than I have in this venue.