Adivion Adrissant

CraziFuzzy's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 1,840 posts (1,843 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
James doesn't write and edit rules. He's the creative director and his answers on rules are "what I would do at my table" and not "Paizo's official response to rules questions"

I'm aware of his role, but the author in question deferred the 'final word' to him as the role of "editor" of the book in question (Inner Sea Magic). Of course, it comes down to an actual GM to make a ruling in the end, but as this is PFS, and given the contention just in this thread (not including all the other threads in this forum on the topic) you can't expect any two GM's to rule on the capabilities of my character in the same way without a pfs campaign clarification, which I highly doubt to ever exist at this stage of pfs1's life..


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

FWIW, I have (since I started this thread) had a conversation with the author about it - and his intention was mostly how I described it - a magical burst of movement and attack in any direction - a'la Starkiller's Force Dash combined with Alucard's afterimages. Unfortunately, while he completely intends it to be able to be used upwards, and isn't really limited by terrain or anything, he deferred to James Jacobs for an actual ruling on how it works, and James has since said that it can't be used upwards. So when even the people writing and editing the rules are contentious about it, I'll definitely avoid its use at a pfs table, which is a shame, because the spell is a lot of fun, and one of the best 'gish-flavor' spells in the ruleset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They could just change the rules that they made? It's not like it's an external law beyond their control.

And therein lies my biggest dislike about them having their game design tied to the print cycle. Rules that are acknowledged as being poorly worded or in some cases not usable are often not dealt with for reasons such as not physically fitting on the page they originated on due to word count/space, or because the book is not going to get a re-printing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Honestly, I don't care if they can get them into 'actual print'... I'm down for audible exclusive releases if possible.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
When is Paizo going to hire a technical writer to make sure rule interactions are actually clear and concise?

Please try asking again without sounding like a jerk and without insulting myself and my coworkers.

Or better yet, don't try and take your insults elsewhere.

I meant no insult - it just seems that in many cases, 'narrative freedom' gets in the way of clear rules. PF2, so far, is a vast improvement in this regard because it has a strong structure to the rules from the beginning, but even then, there are times when the rules get more literary than they are precise, requiring more interpretation than simply parsing - if that makes sense.

The goal of a technical writer is to ensure that there is only one way to interpret a bit of writing - which can make for a far more durable rule system. It's not beautiful or flowery, but it serves the purpose of being RULES that way.

Interestingly, my question on technical writing was inspired by the same issue that Tallyn just asked about - spells like Bladed Dash are very colorful and descriptive writing, but I've never encountered two GM's who interpret the spell's effects, capabilities and restrictions in the same way.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
When is Paizo going to hire a technical writer to make sure rule interactions are actually clear and concise?

Please try asking again without sounding like a jerk and without insulting myself and my coworkers.

Or better yet, don't try and take your insults elsewhere.

I meant no insult - it just seems that in many cases, 'narrative freedom' gets in the way of clear rules. PF2, so far, is a vast improvement in this regard because it has a strong structure to the rules from the beginning, but even then, there are times when the rules get more literary than they are precise, requiring more interpretation than simply parsing - if that makes sense.

The goal of a technical writer is to ensure that there is only one way to interpret a bit of writing - which can make for a far more durable rule system. It's not beautiful or flowery, but it serves the purpose of being RULES that way.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Publish or perish is still the law of the market.

I fully support the idea of all hardcovers, no softcovers, so that errata can be reprinted in a more timely manner.

I'm not sure that rule really holds true like it used to. I'm guessing they sell far more pdf's than actual books these days, and that trend is likely to shift deeper into the digital direction.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Rysky wrote:

I know there was a few (and posted Errata, not printed Errata), and granted yes they were very few, but it did indeed happen.

If you mean developers commenting in discussion threads, sadly, I've never met anyone who considered those actual rule changes. Only if it was on a given product's faq page.
Adventurer's Armory errata.

Yeah - though I believe that was one of the first companions that was released after Pathfinder actually became its own game (and before they were even branded as 'Player Companions.' Had they continued to care for their products like that, the game WOULD have been far better - and forum discussions would have been cut in half. An RPG game system needs to be a living system that accepts corrections and clarifications as they are found to be needed - threads like this very one do nothing good for the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

Are you sure of that? As far as I've seen, no softcover has ever had a FAQ page made, and no errata has ever been out. The only clarifications that might have come about from any softcover would be specific to pfs, on the campaign clarifications page - and those are few and far between.

Paizo doesn't do FAQ or errata unless they're doing a reprint (because they want the dead tree to be the most up to date and correct version)

Softcovers don't get FAQ or errata

Therefore no faq for you.

They were doing PFS campaign clarifications as a backdoor faster/more frequent faq but then people complained pfs ruined everything by breaking their characters.

Oh, I know the reason they don't do the faq or errata for softcovers - the problem is, it's a stance that hurts the game as a whole. I'm hoping that they've maybe changed that view a little going into pf2, but I find it unlikely. They still feel that making books is more important than putting good rules IN those books.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

I know there was a few (and posted Errata, not printed Errata), and granted yes they were very few, but it did indeed happen.

If you mean developers commenting in discussion threads, sadly, I've never met anyone who considered those actual rule changes. Only if it was on a given product's faq page.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cavall wrote:

It is nice to know that a magus with a lot of int damage could use a scroll of this and add his charisma if its higher.

By nice I mean will never come up but funny.

It's also a Bard (and consequently Skald) spell, thus the Charisma in the spell text.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
RAWmonger wrote:
You guys won't believe this but they actually just officially errata'd Bladed Dash and have assured us "Bladed Dash is no longer a source of contention at tables."
Except, being from a softcover, it is immune from actual rules clarifications (no FAQ or Errata for soft covers - because Paizo).
That has more to do with them moving on to P2 than it originally being in a Softcover, they did Errata and FAQs for stuff with them.

Are you sure of that? As far as I've seen, no softcover has ever had a FAQ page made, and no errata has ever been out. The only clarifications that might have come about from any softcover would be specific to pfs, on the campaign clarifications page - and those are few and far between.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RAWmonger wrote:
You guys won't believe this but they actually just officially errata'd Bladed Dash and have assured us "Bladed Dash is no longer a source of contention at tables."

Except, being from a softcover, it is immune from actual rules clarifications (no FAQ or Errata for soft covers - because Paizo).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Regarding the 'Talk to your GM' recommendation, this character is a pfs character, where 'talk to your GM' isn't necessarily an answer.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I wish I knew which of the guys actually wrote the spell, and what their vision of it was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

In my particular case, what made me think of using this in the 'up' direction was the Airy Step feat. It'd be awesome to blast up unto the air, swipe at the flying baddie, and then drift back down smoothly.

And that is sort of the best thing about this spell - is that, at least as I read it, it is one of the most cinematic spells in the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I think it's pretty clear (at least to me) that the movement can absolutely go through enemies as well. Heck, the Greater version is very much designed to blast through a crowd of mooks and land in front of (or behind) the big bad. You move 30 ft. Doesn't say it has to be in a clear path, it doesn't say that ground even needs to be there along the way, just that the square can't be occupied where you end up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Okay - so at least this answered the question - because the disagreements in this thread are exactly the same things that were said of this spell 8 years ago. That's incredibly sad, as it means I will likely avoid even TRYING to use it, because of this rule confusion that is likely to happen.

FWIW, I have always interpreted it as you do 'move' (meaning change location linearly from point A to point B), but you do not walk, run, fly, jump, swim, climb or burrow. The mention of it leaving being a trail of images makes it, to me, seem to be a sort of burst of movement, or even transmuting to energy of sorts - in whatever direction you choose. It is pretty obvious that you can pass through creatures in your flash, since it describes not working if there isn't AN unoccupied space along your route for you to end in - meaning the only unoccupied space required is the one you stop in.

Apparently, I'm not getting a common interpretation though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

James is not 'interpreting' the wording in any particular way, and neither are you - you are both stating a desired outcome, in spite of the wording. I'm sorry, but there is no logical way to take the words in the book and turn them into 'you can always choose any abilities you like.' It does still need to be changed if that is what everyone wants the rules to say.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

However you feel gets the message across.

(that's not my Longbow character, but it's a screenshot I had handy)

And I assume the first chronicle would show the crafting check result (Success, Critical Success, etc).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

It's just one roll when you Craft (assuming you're successful). After you level, you save more while crafting that item.

I had a 1st level character Craft a Composite Longbow, and over the course of the next several sessions she saved quite a bit more than she would have Earning Income.

It's *generally* more worthwhile to Craft, but I'm looking at a new Sorcerer with the Bargain Hunter feat, and I think I'll do better over time with that.

Good catch on the Faction Boons.

And how would you record the partial progress on chronicle sheets for that long longbow job?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Why are clarified rules a bad thing for you? I ask because you seem to jump onto anyone asking for things like this.

As someone who created the PFS1 Compilation of Campaign Clarifications thread that was Stickied to the top of this Forum for years, and who has had nearly a dozen FAQs over in the Rules Forum answered (including "the most-FAQed FAQ of all the FAQs that ever FAQed"), I giggled a little when I read your post.

When ambiguity causes problems and conflict, I am vocal in wanting and getting it solved.

But I am equally opposed to having intentionally open features fenced in.

I see this particular question as being the latter. If time shows that this feature becomes a loophole for abuse, then I will absolutely champion you in getting it fixed. But I'm not the only one in this thread who sees this as working as intended right now. Indeed, the freedom to change your Familiar's abilities every day seems to reinforce that notion.

(why shouldn't your magical, made-up, statblock-absent minion be adjustable to your needs?)

But there's also consideration of priorities involved in asking for clarifications. I know all too well that some questions take literally years to answer. And that's just on the Design side. Tack on the workload of Organized Play clarifications, and questions like this become more of a "how should I change my point of view?" rather than "how should this be defined?"

Plus, there is currently a very real philosophy that Organized Play should limit their number of "houserules" and leave the rules questions to the Design Team. There are numerous examples in the past of having Campaign Leadership issue a clarification on this side that ended up conflicting with clarifications on the other side.

I did not ask for anything to be 'fenced in' I asked for the dichotomy to be clarified. While that CAN be done by producing a list of familiars and what features they have by default, it could also be solved by simply striking the ambiguously restrictive rule that is the actual source of the contradiction. I stated so in my original post.

Based on James Jacobs' own comments on this matter, it seems his interpretation is that any familiar should be able to have any abilities, thereby simply ignoring the written rules. That's a fine interpretation, but it is clear that it DOES conflict with what is written in the book. It is also well known that 'JJ is not a rules guy,' so it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't see the issue. If that IS the wish of the design team, then it is an errata issue, and not one of a pfs 'houserule'. In the meantime, though, the pfs leadership, being the ones who SHOULD be interpreting the rules for pfs play, can certainly put a small note in the Character Creation section of the pfs guide to clarify this, and it takes nothing more than a sentence or two added to a webpage.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So, the one question I do have, because I'm not sure it's clear, is after the roll is made, for the post-4-day craft check, there is no mention of any further rolls. Does this still apply for crafting jobs that extend well past a single downtime?

In the core rules, there does seem to be just the singular roll - and nothing in the downtime rules seems to counteract that - but the wording of the associated faction boons seem to contradict that:

Naturalist wrote:
When you acquire this boon choose an alchemical item or potion of your level or lower to which you have access. While you have this boon slotted, you can spend Downtime to search for rare herbs and ingredients in order to craft up to a full batch of this item (typically 4). This uses the same rules as you would to Craft the item, with the following exceptions. First, you must use Nature, Survival, or Herbalism Lore in place of Crafting (such as to determine the progress you make and the maximum item level you can work on). Second, your faction provides you the necessary tools and workspace to perform this operation. Third, you only need to spend 2 days of Downtime before attempting your first skill check and subsequently beginning to reduce the item’s effective cost. You must keep this boon slotted until you finish crafting the items.

In any case, since some crafting jobs may last quite a bit longer than a single chronicle, how is this best recorded? How about when you level up mid-job?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Landon Hatfield wrote:

Couple of things that may affect your decision:

1) The 8-day blocks only applies to Earn Income, as far as I can tell. Assuming I'm not missing it somewhere, that would mean your first example could craft your Repair Kit and Earn Income for your remaining three days, cutting down your costs to only 0.95gp total.

2) The main reason for the 8-day blocks is to balance out the curve of characters who get a lot of Downtime at once. For example, a field commissioned agent playing a module gets 36 days of Downtime. A single critical (in either direction) would wildly swing that character's gained wealth. By splitting it into 4 8-day blocks and 1 4-day block, the rolls get balanced out over time to more closely resemble those of a non-field commissioned character playing scenarios.

Yeah, that does look to be correct - I think I just saw the '4-day block' in the text and thought it was similar (actually, I think my GM said it had to be done in blocks like that, and I remembered the text and figured it to be the case, but yeah, after looking again, yeah, there's no 'block size' limitation on crafting.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

My magus is getting up in levels finally, and I'm envisioning a lot more use of Bladed Dash in her future - my question is, is this still a point of contention at pfs tables? I've in the past read many a report of people ruling completely differently than how I interpret it, and I'm not sure there's been any sort of official clarification of it. I remember all sorts of strange complications made in regards to it back when it was released - can't cast it if you've taken a 5-ft step, can't move through difficult terrain with it, can't move through creatures with it, etc - all of which seemed quite odd for me, as to me, it seem the spell is sort of an instantaneous flash of light type thing, not just running across the field of battle.

My only real pfs experience with it directly was when a GM was very reluctant to let me escape from black tentacles with it - which seemed very well within the realm of what it should be able to do.

What brought this back up to the top of my head, was that my Sylph Magus now has Airy Step, meaning she's got a permanent 30 ft feather fall effect - this means the 'bladed dash straight-up' is a crazy fun viable tactic vs flying targets. Has this been blocked in anyone's experience?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John Brinkman wrote:
The only thing I can see is that in your crafting only example, I'm pretty sure that down time is spent in 8 day bricks, not 12. So you'd apply the 12 you rolled against the first 8 days and then having to roll again for the last 4, risking worse (or better) dice rolls.

Yeah, I simplified that, since I was trying to compare apples to apples and use the same dice roll, so in this exercise, it's functionally equivalent. Legitimately, they probably should change that rule to be 'one earn income roll per downtime session' since I'm pretty sure the point of the 8 day block was to make it just a single roll - but the field commission stuff sort of breaks that up in an odd way.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Someone did point out to me after the endeavor, that Horizon Hunters have a Tier 2 Faction Boon that lets you Earn Income at your level, instead of Level-2. With this boon, earning income would ALWAYS be better than crafting, because it's done AT your level (same as crafting) but without the loss of 4 days.

I then found that Envoy's Alliance also has a downtime boon - and it just gets rid of the wasted 4 days of crafting - which means crafting is done with the DC of the item level, but the earning rate of your level - making it better than earning income..

Vigilant Seal's Downtime boon lets you essentially 'Craft' a single magic item, using Arcana, Nature, occultism, or Religion instead of Crafting. The 'wasted days' is only 2 here, but you've got to buy the 2 Fame boon for each item you want to craft in this way.

Verdant Wheel's Downtime boon is only Tier 1, so available earlier, and is similar to Vigilant Seal in that it is the ability to Craft up batches of alchemical items or potions, this time using Nature Survival or Herbalism Lore.

so yeah.. variables stacked on variables.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

SO, at the end of our pfs2 session this last weekend, I decided to take the time after everyone else got their chronicles to sit with the GM and work out the crafting mechanic, and how it is supposed to work - and if it is ever even worth doing. I had a 1st level alchemist with a +7 in Crafting, and Crafting was also my highest 'Earn Income' viable skill (well, it was equal to my two Lore skills at the time, so any of the three would be the same for earning).

I had decided that since my background had granted me Quick Repair, I should acquire a Repair Kit to make use of it. We decided I'd go forward with the crafting, and then compare it to the same dice results earning income and see what is actually better.

So, the Crafting process:
I declare that I'm crafting a Repair Kit. This is a level 0 common item that has a Price of 2gp. Referring to TABLE 10-5: DCS BY LEVEL, we find that a Level 0 task has a DC of 14. If it was not a COMMON item, we would check TABLE 10-6:DC ADJUSTMENTS and adjust the DC as necessary - but it is COMMON, so we'll move forward with the DC-14 task. I also (and this is a bit ambiguous for common items in the pfs rules) need a formula for the item I'm trying to make. A Basic Crafter's Book costs 1sp, so I purchase that and now have a formula for every Level 0 Common item in existence.. neat!

I spend 4 days of downtime and half the price (1gp) to start the crafting job. I then roll the check. 12 on the die gives a result of 19, so it's a SUCCESS. That means the job can continue, and "Each additional day spent Crafting reduces the materials needed to complete the item buy an amount based on your level and your proficiency rank." Consulting TABLE 4-2: INCOME EARNED shows that I would reduce the price at a rate of 2sp/day (Trained and MY LEVEL of 1), meaning 5 more days of downtime and it would be done. PFS downtime is spent in blocks of 4 days, however, so I'm spending 8 more to finish it up. As a Field Commissioned Agent of the pathfinder society, I have 12 days to work with after a scenario, so that's my entire downtime for this session. So, after downtime is done, I've got my shiny new Repair Kit, a book full of potentially useful crafting formulae, and am 1.1gp poorer.

So now, what about the alternative?
Had I instead simply earned income for that 12 day period, and made the same dice roll, I would have been attempting a Level 0 Task, Trained. The DC is still 14, so the 19 is still a SUCCESS. Level 0 Trained earns is 5cp/day, times 12 days of downtime is 6sp earned. I then purchase my Repair Kit for 2gp. So, if I spent my downtime earning to buy it, I would still have my shiny new Repair Kit, and be 1.4gp poorer, and don't have a crafting book.

In this particular case, crafting was obviously better (though it did take a bit more jumping around the rules and requires some more annotation on the chronicle sheet).

After getting home, I was realized that I had leveled up after that session, so I decided to see if it would still be better to craft at my new higher level. The complication here, is that this alchemist is a gnome with the Gnome Obsession feat, so my Lore skills are now at Expert, +10, while Crafting is now at Trained +8.. will this alone tip the balance? Lets see:

Still assuming a 12 on the die, Crafting would mean:
4 days setting up and spending 1gp. Crafting check of 20 vs DC-14 is still a SUCCESS - but now completion is done at the rate of Trained Level 2, which is 3sp/day, meaning the Repair Kit is completed in the next 4 days. I then have 4 days to 'Earn Income', at a Trained level 0 rate of 5cp/day, so I earn another 2sp. So, altogether, I've got the Repair Kit, Basic Crafter's Book, and spent 0.9gp.
Still assuming a 12 on the die, Earning Income would mean:
Lore check of 22 vs DC-14 is still a SUCCESS, so earn income at Expert Level 0 is still just 5cp/day, so still earning a total if 0.6gp for the 12 days. So, with this option, I've still got the buy the Repair Kit, so as before net expenditure of 1.4gp, so crafting is even better. The Lore modifier is higher, however, so there's a greater chance of a critical success - and if that was the case, it would earn at the Expert level 1 rate of 2sp/day times 12 days earning 2.4gp over the downtime, so purchasing the Repair Kit means actually coming out with the Repair Kit and earning 4sp.

What's the conclusion? No idea. Crits are big in the earn income game, which means they are also big in the Crafting game since they use the same table. I do know I'll probably stick to Crafting, if I can reasonably do it, just because it FEELS nicer to make the tools I use myself, instead of buying them from the market - but the differences are not so much that you HAVE to go that route, and the simpler Earn Income role is so much smoother to navigate if the group is trying to just get Chronicles thrown out and head home.

So there you have it. A bunch of rambling and sputtering about to come out with no real conclusive evidence that it was the right way to go... That sure sounds like Pathfinder Crafting at its core, right?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

FWIW, all the level 0 common items' formula can be purchased together in one 'Basic Crafter's Book' for only 1sp. Silly, but it is the clearest way to ensure that this question doesn't come up in pfs play when you decide to use your downtime to craft mundane items because it is marginally better than earning income then purchasing it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So - yes - you can have this conversation with every single GM you bring the character to - or they can just put a clarification that removes that restrictive rule in pfs play. Why are clarified rules a bad thing for you? I ask because you seem to jump onto anyone asking for things like this.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Derek Larsen wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
How will aid characters be interacted with during the special? I understand that the primary character is of course tied up with this mission during the length of the scenario, and thus cannot be used in any other pfs tables during that time (standard PbP pfs stuff), but are characters assigned to an aid role also subject to this restriction?

As there is a higher than normal risk of death for each of your characters during this Special I would consider them locked out of other games for the time frame of the Special.

Even with the potential of death it is a very fun scenario! I highly recommend it and bringing aid characters,

If I need to use them in other games during that long PbP window, then it doesn't matter how much fun the aid character play may be, because I can't participate in it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Tommi Ketonen wrote:

The point here is that all familiars are equal, except for the abilities you select for it. It doesn't matter if you call your familiar an "owl with big digging claws and it has flight and borrow speed too" or "a fish that spins it's fins so fast it flies and can roll around in the ground to burrow."

For all intents and purposes, the two animals are exactly equal, despite the difference in flavor.

I admit, that the rules themselves say
"If your familiar is an animal that naturally has one of these abilities (for instance, an owl has a fly Speed), you must select that ability. Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily maximum familiar abilities."
But familiars don't have stats anywhere. There's quite literally no reason for a GM to argue that "You can't pick an owl as your familiar and NOT give it flight!" because the player can just respond with "Okay, tell me which bird does not have flight (or any of the other natural abilities). Okay, Kiwi? Fair enough, my familiar isn't an owl that can't fly, it's just a Kiwi that looks a -lot- like an owl, can speak, and can burrow, and I've named it "owl" and will call it such. But it's still a kiwi. No difference though."
Basically, whatever you decide your familiar's original form is, is just going to be flavor you've chosen to apply to a bunch of stats.

"Quite literally no reason," except for the written rule that says exactly that. That is my problem with it. It is a bad rule, and should be fixed, or at least clarified.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

To be honest, since this paragraph is completely unchanged from the playtest to the core rulebook, my hunch is that they had intended the bestiary to have statblocks for a variety of mundane critters - the wording that 'owl has a fly speed' seems to imply that you go look at the owl, see that it has a fly speed, and that answers that question. I'm guessing page count on the bestiary meant that they ended up just removing the 'rules' for mundane critters that COULD mostly be ruled by common sense, but didn't go back and change the restrictive familiar rules to reflect that this information is not available.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I don't see how I'm misinterpreting the wording here.

Familiar and Master Abilities wrote:
Each day, you channel your magic into two abilities, which can be either familiar or master abilities. If your familiar is an animal that naturally has one of these abilities (for instance, an owl has a fly Speed), you must select that ability. Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily maximum familiar abilities.

This was certainly not intended as an 'If you want it to fly you have to take flight' type of rule. The following statement showing that you cannot select an animal type that has more natural abilities than you have slots for further backs up my interpretation that this is a written requirement. Now, I'd gladly see that requirement errata'd away, but in the meantime, PFS leadership needs to chime in on how GMs are supposed to handle it.

Also, realize that this is a daily choice for familiars. @Nefreet, By your interpretation that it is all in player choice, then a player can have an owl looking familiar that one day loses its ability to fly so the wizard can have an extra spell slot, and loses its darkvision so it can swim instead. If GM's interpret this rule differently (as you and I have already done), then this is something that could easily cause conflict every gameday.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
GM Dennis wrote:
Yes, aid characters are at risk, so I don't think they can be played elsewhere during the special.

Ah. That's a shame for those of us who play at tables and online. In practice, this means I won't have any aid characters to bring to the special.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

How will aid characters be interacted with during the special? I understand that the primary character is of course tied up with this mission during the length of the scenario, and thus cannot be used in any other pfs tables during that time (standard PbP pfs stuff), but are characters assigned to an aid role also subject to this restriction?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Add Wait wrote:
Kobold seemed much more setup for it in society though, storywise.

And just general societal norms (lawful) as well. Kobolds for tight knit communities - yes, xenophobic - but they at least have a basis for supporting the community being a strong force. goblins (chaotic) will eat their own tribesmen if they get antsy.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

This probably should be worded a bit differently, because the last sentence in the pfs guide does lend you to the belief that you only need a formula for uncommon or rare items.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So, I know the pf2 familiars are supposed to be pretty wide open, creativity wise - just pick any tiny animal and choose the abilities you want. But there are some things that I think, in organized play, need some clarifications.

- The CRB states that if the base animal of the familiar already has a certain ability (the example states an Owl has flight), then that ability HAS to be selected. There is nothing, however, that says what abilities a particular animal has since there are almost no tiny animals in the bestiary. Some of these 'might' be common sense, but some might not - yes, an owl or other common bird obviously has flight - but does it also have darkvision? What abilities does a snake have? Does a cat have climber? Does a rat have scent? Do any animals have speeds that would require them to have the Fast movement ability?
To me, this is something that is easy enough to solve with either a simple table listing some animals, and the abilities they have, or a pfs specific ruling that says that they do not need to take the abilities of their base form. Otherwise we're open to table variation here.

- The CRB also states that a familiar uses your level when making an attack roll but with no bestiary entries, there is no information anywhere on what their attacks might consist of. Do they have an attack? What is it if they do?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

When is Paizo going to hire a technical writer to make sure rule interactions are actually clear and concise?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

It still sounds like the major problem is that the amulet is too expensive, not that the wraps are too cheap. That means this is a fix, and not a complication.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

plenty of items have come out over the years that make core options less optimal - hell, entire classes have come out - and those are made legal. I think I'd be okay with this if this was just a different slot amulet - but that's not really the case. It doesn't do some things the amulet does, and it does to some things the amulet does not.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

The handwraps specifically prohibit combining with the amulet.

Handwraps wrote:
A character can’t benefit from both handwraps and other items that provide enhancement bonuses or weapon special abilities (such as an amulet of mighty fists) on the same attack.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Is the cost difference not because the amulet affects all unarmed and natural weapons? I get it, it's a huge increase, but that seems to be a problem with the amulet, not the wraps that are priced exactly the same as any other enchantable weapon. I just thought I was missing something.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Is there some rule complication or OP thing I'm missing with the handwraps in Martial Arts Handbook that put them on the ban-hammer's anvil for pfs? Just trying to understand the reasoning for this one.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

is anyone aware of a way to improve to higher level's of bloodline powers through raging blood? I have a really fun Monk (Scaled Fist)/Sorcerer (Shapechanger) that would absolutely love the 4th level Shapechanger 'Spontaneous Change' power.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I'm pretty sure that is not the intention of the campaign leadership.

Since you're pretty sure, and I'm absolutely sure, why are we having this discussion?

We know Pathfinder Society Lore is valid. We know Pathfinder Society Lore comes up in games.

Doesn't seem like an issue to me.

It's a suggestion for an improvement. Why the fight against it?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
If it's like the Champion's you'll get a curse as part of the dedication but no mystery.

Maybe - the issue is that at least as currently written, the curse only activates when you cast a revelation spell. So without the latter, the former means nothing, mechanically.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So would the Aldori Duelist archetype fit best on the champion, fighter, or the (testing) swashbuckler? You can just as easily put the Aldori Duelist archetype on a bard or alchemist if you choose - doesn't matter. All it takes is proficiency in the sword, available via the human unconventional weaponry feat.

This is the flexibility that means things like swashbuckler don't need to be their own feats - it's something that can be built on an existing, more versatile chassis, by specializing down feat selections.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Coldermoss wrote:

Like I said earlier in that thread, these concepts can hold a ton more thematic and mechanical weight than a simple archetype would allow. What you're describing here isn't a game design issue, it's one of personal taste.

And the good news is that you can make characters to your taste even though these will all be full classes because they are going to come with multiclass dedications. So you can absolutely make that cleric who trades a curse for power or that wizard who gets in too deep by taking the Oracle dedication at level 2. There is nothing stopping you!

I wrote this thread based on the information provided so far. We have no idea at all what an oracle or witch dedication feat will provide. It's easy to assume that the oracle one will have you select a mystery, but it's not clear what it would actually provide to you beyond the mystery's trained skills and maybe the mystery cantrip (if the sorcerer dedication is any indication).

1 to 50 of 1,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>