DrakeRoberts's page

I have two concerns about this process as well, though they aren’t as drastic as those of the OP. Firstly, I’m unsure how we’re to go live with rules changes beyond those documented in the PFS Remaster blog and PFS guide if we say this is core assumption and then there’s a delay before AoN gets it live. Secondly, figuring out what feats, spells, etc have changed (and thus need to be updated on an old character) is going to be a pain without some sort of composed list of which things have now been “errata’d”. Can we get such a list perhaps? It seems that with such changes needing to be made and AoN not being ready on November 15th, perhaps there should have been a bit of a delay built into the PFS adoption timeline? The obvious answer is that we’re all just here to have fun and people are going to get stuff wrong, and we’ll roll with the punches…. And yet we have the guidebook and rules for a reason, and the impossibility of that timeline for anyone that didn’t get an advance copy of the book is problematic and likely to result in frustration and confusion. I get it’s a bit late to change things now perhaps, but maybe we should at least file it away as a lesson to learn and remember in the future?

DrakeRoberts wrote:

1) Characters from the Core 2 book that are created after November 15 but before Core 2 won't, by this, have a Remaster Rebuild to change themselves. This is a non-issue if they're granted specific free rebuilds when Core 2 comes out.

This one is already addressed.

Check the dates again. There is only one Rebuild option offered per character. But the range of date that it is available for extends past the release date of Player Core 2. So my Swashbuckler character can sit on the Remaster Rebuild until PC2 drops and then use the rebuild then.

What doesn't work - and the example given - is a Wizard character that uses the Remaster Rebuild immediately and then wants to use it again once PC2 comes out so that they can get a cool new feat that came available in that book.

Yes, but only characters made before November 15th get that rebuild (although they can use it until December 2024). My concern is for characters that are made AFTER November 15th but before the release of Core 2 that use classes that will be in Core 2. For example, if I make a barbarian in January 2024, then according to the post, that character will not have the free rebuild, and there will not be free rebuilds given out similarly when Core 2 comes out. So then will I need to use ACP to rebuild my Barbarian into the remastered chassis when Core 2 comes out? Or might we offer those characters a free rebuild when Core 2 happens?

Mocharaid wrote:

toErIpNid wrote:

VestOfHolding wrote:

You can't say something is automatically worse by the mere existence of something else without actually looking at it first. You need to actually be able to do the comparison. I'm asking for what you think of Demiplane's specific features.

Yes, I have. And the moment I saw price tags on the different source books, on top of the primer only giving users four classes to pick from, I knew I wasn't going to use it.

Demiplane's UI, utility, and aesthetics are fine, but there is no way I'm using it over Pathbuilder. That's what makes or breaks it for me. It's inferior in terms of price and what other alternatives can offer already. That's all there is to it.

I'm taking your advice and building test characters in both, side by side and I have to say, it's not making a good case for Demiplane, for me personally. The constant loading on Demiplane when you select something is especially annoying.

Gonna go ahead and mark your post as a favorite, because I at least greatly appreciate the good faith side-by-side testing and comparison. This is helpful feedback for Demiplane and others.

My problem with the comments I've seen from you here (and admittedly some others too, but you've been the most vocal), is the assumption that people saying the cost is too high are trying to get something for free. Or that their input isn't helpful feedback. But neither of those things are true. People are saying that this product is not worth it to them at this price point or with this pricing model. And that should be considered VERY helpful feedback for Demiplane, because if enough people have that opinion, then perhaps they would succeed better with a different pricing model. It does no good for them to price their product at what you or they think it is worth, if at that price they have a far more limited customer base than they might at a lower price point or with a different pricing structure. A company trying to make money needs to try to maximize its Net Profit per Sale x Sales Quantity. And if you really DO want to make sure that the developers are well fed, then you'd accept that the feedback being given about pricing might very well do that better than telling everybody to just suck it up and shut up if they don't like the current pricing. I haven't seen many people here not wanting this product or company to succeed. I've seen a number of people trying to help Demiplane understand what changes might help them reach a larger customer base and, in the end, best profit from their work.

Wow, the pdf is sooo cheap, it almost feels like stealing. I would expect (and support) the thing costing at least 20€, if not 25.

Please don't encourage such things. There are those of us who need to be a bit more thrifty and are already missing out on much of the Lost Omens line because that is the price point of those particular PDFs. We went from $8-$15 per pdf in PF1 ($10 for most large rulebooks) and similar pricing for Starfinder to $15 for core RPG books, and $25 for the larger (in quantity, I believe) Lost Omens line books. That's a fairly large percentage increase in budget costs, one that I personally haven't yet been able to reconcile. If you really are so keen to give them more money, I'm sure they wouldn't mind you buying another item (or a second copy for a friend). Thank you in advance. :)

How will this compare to the Alexa Starfinder game that released a while back?

Alison-Cybe wrote:

Quote:

“But it’s what my character would do!” is not justification for mayhem and disrespect.

So I just want to say Alex, thank you VERY much for incorporating this line.

I'd also like to echo it, through a megaphone, for everybody in the back.

I'm a 90s kid and came into TTRPGs via Vampire in that era, which is a game system which gained a following which very heavily emphasized what'd be considered PvP type of play - either by combat or social.

VtM and other games have their place. But that place is not Pathfinder Society tables (and I say that as someone who plays CN "I'mma thwart your plan to get my jollies" well, but only towards the enemies).

I don’t want to go off-rails here, but let’s leave the maligning of other systems out of this please? This is not a problem with systems, but with players, and one that I have encountered more times than I wish at Pathfinder Society tables. There is a time for role-playing and a time for acting in a meta-fashion, and the latter occurs when the former would spoil the fun for others at the table. Roleplaying games are a chance to mutually tell a story, with an emphasis on the “mutually”. Explore, report, and most importantly… cooperate!

Gear array seems to use your level only when determining your list of major and minor forms. If you use a Gear Array as your secondary array with Manifold Array, are you limited only to form gear that's on your known forms lists AND 4 levels lower than your class level? Or can you make any of your known forms as normal?

Ironically, I used the Discorporation Faculty in playtest, and plan to do so again. In the 2 scenarios I played, I used the ooze form (perhaps multiple times?) in at least one of them (can't actually remember the second game...). Discorporation seems interesting for people that want to be able to creatively get to places they shouldn't. You're in a lot of buildings, ships, etc. potentially, and such places have ductwork. This is perhaps harder to use in SFS, depending on the GM, but that was what I playtested with, and like I said, it worked there for the GM I had at least.

As for reactive spray, if you don't want to spend the surge, the cloud would still let you take a 10' guarded step on your next turn, perhaps setting you up for flank (for melee) or for getting away from a large melee attacker (if ranged), both of which are potentially useful for their particular fighting styles. Also potentially useful with certain knacks such as sensory/all-seeing nanites.

I definitely agree that there are other faculties that are more mechanically beneficial, but for RP and creative solutions/utility, I enjoyed Discoporporation.

"Convince the universe" IMO is a thing more like a spellcaster do. Is a context far more closer to how a spellcaster like Marvel's Doctor Strange do or a "psychic" like Matrix's Neo do than a DC's Constantine who tricks using diverse itens and stratagems to exploit flaws from universe/creatures/spells do.

That's why the concept provided by Mark justifying CHA and the class mechanics who exploit flaws don't meet. The concept who thaumaturge class claims simply doesn't meets with what it does.

I don't know. What if it isn't convincing the universe? The idea is that SOMETHING should work, if only you knew what. If that's the case than a successful charisma-based Find Flaws represents the delving into stories, folklore, etc. Things that are spoken rather than written. Things that require less intellect and more social skills to acquire. More a reading of the Supernatural and Superstitions Gestalt. if you will. That interpretation is certainly in line with Dubious Knowledge being given as a by fiat feat, doesn't it?

Perhaps their Forgotten Lore was not dug up in some dusty old tome, but by talking to people, hearing their folklores and stories, etc? Perhaps their force of personality, the belief they put behind those fabled relics and remedies and superstitions is why they can benefit from weaknesses that others can't? But it is reasonable (from a fantasy/fiction standpoint), IMHO, for stories to hold a grain of truth, and for such stories to only hold power for those who truly believe them, and have the inner fortitude to enforce that will upon reality. Exorcisms in fiction settings, for example, often emphasize this.

Jared - What about this class is Ruth enjoying? What about it does she like? Also what level is she playing the class at? For me, the only really interesting part so far is the Adaptive Strike, which is loaded with flavor and gives an interesting mechanical twist to the class. I’ve certainly seen you say how she enjoys that part, and I understand why. But are there other aspects that she likes from this class that isn’t obtainable by basically any other character were they to have adaptive strike?

I'm not concerned with using the ACP system for SFS reward boons. What confuses me is using ACP apparently to replace scenario boons. Losing scenario boons loses soooo much flavor and such from having played scenarios. It is wonderful to pull out mementos from past games that some players have the GMs make extra little 'flavor' additions to inventories and whatnots (such as PF1 players collecting Aspis Consortium badges). I for one will be VERY sad and disenchanted if we lose scenario boons. ACP for rewards makes plenty of sense... those boons are meta boons, related to nothing your character has done in game. But please bring back scenario boons!

Agreed. I like the feel, but not the execution. Have Disguise be a class skill. Have Facial Reconfiguration act like a holoskin + use Con for Disguise instead of Charisma. These changes would make the knack worthwhile and reinforce the cool flavor. Otherwise, it is far more effective to just buy a holoskin or put one in your gear array. I was all over these knacks originally, then realized these things and my new playtest version got rid of the knack in lieu of holoskin gear array to mimic the same flavor at a much more successful-to-use and cheaper-to-take option.

Yeah.... gotta say I’m not a fan of this idea, at least not on the surface with what info we have now. I absolutely love the fun of getting neat flavorful boons with my games. They feel in-character and meaningful. This banking points and purchasing via acp thing feels much more meta. What is the motivation behind this change.

Also, race boons from scenarios helped give the great cantina feel. It saddens me that we’ll need to go from “play a game” to “play a whole bunch of games” to get one.

I could see some possible changes:

1) When you re-invest, you get back the UPBs from the prior investment
2) Minor/Major forms can be retrained at each level
3) Minor/Major forms can be chosen with values higher than your investment (still can't make them until you raise investment) as long as your choices are in level cap

I feel like the last one is really important, as it is very awkward to have something in game ("I eat this item") have to be timed perfectly with something out of game ("I leveled up, so need to choose forms") in order to work out correctly. It also would help with generating a higher-than-level-1 Nanocyte (a problem I'm having atm trying to playtest), because when you do that there's no way to cleanly pick forms at intermediary levels because the only investment you have is from your starting credits. Therefore, for both mechanical and flavor reasons, I think 3 should be strongly considered.

More on topic, for building a Nanocyte at a higher level, how do we determine minor/major forms, since in theory the chosen forms at each level are based on a combination of level at the time you took the form as well as how much your Nanite Investment was at those times?

In that way, hirelings can at least help give soldiers some way to participate outside of combat. Ideally, this will lead to less soldier players forcing combat over diplomatic solutions even when diplomacy is appropriate just because they’re bored when combat isn’t as prevalent. I find this happens a lot in organized play (both sfs and pfs1).

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Mark,

I constantly find myself coming back to the idea of a Sensei Monk for PFS. Unfortunately, over the many years I’ve wanted to do this, I’ve never received a clear picture of how the Mystic Wisdom advice works. Specifically, does it cost both Ki and Advice/Perfomance uses to activate, and does it take the Ki ability’s action, or does it also take the Advice action? Or is it usable while maintaining Advice?

For a specific illustrative example, let’s use a 6th level sensei trying to Mystic Wisdom his +20’ speed ability to an ally. What does this cost in actions, in Ki, and in Advice rounds? Are there any prerequisites (like currently maintaining an advice power) or caveats (like automatically ending a lingering/maintained advice power)?

Thanks!

It's ambiguous, and while Just a Mort gives a reasonable breakdown, I'm inclined to read the main ambiguity slightly differently: the crucial part of the initial ability is "a sensei may use his advice ability when spending points from his ki pool to activate a class ability in order to..."

Since this is asking you to use advice (and not a particular performance) specifically when spending points, it seems akin to saying something like "a bard may use his bardic performance ability when casting a spell in order to change its target." Now the timing is quite odd, and either of these is significantly sloppy wording, but it seems to be asking for you to use advice as part of the same action that costs ki (presumably 1 round of advice I guess?), not to separately have another advice active (in either case, it would be much better if it was more explicit).

But here's the twist! The 10th level ability (where Just a Mort was explaining) asks you to do something completely different (spend a swift action and a ki point while advice is currently active) to grant an ally one of those passive abilities for 1 round.

So then, given the line of spending the action for

...

Thanks... now can we get a rewrite/republish that clarifies without nerfing? :)

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Mark,

I constantly find myself coming back to the idea of a Sensei Monk for PFS. Unfortunately, over the many years I’ve wanted to do this, I’ve never received a clear picture of how the Mystic Wisdom advice works. Specifically, does it cost both Ki and Advice/Perfomance uses to activate, and does it take the Ki ability’s action, or does it also take the Advice action? Or is it usable while maintaining Advice?

For a specific illustrative example, let’s use a 6th level sensei trying to Mystic Wisdom his +20’ speed ability to an ally. What does this cost in actions, in Ki, and in Advice rounds? Are there any prerequisites (like currently maintaining an advice power) or caveats (like automatically ending a lingering/maintained advice power)?

Thanks!

It's ambiguous, and while Just a Mort gives a reasonable breakdown, I'm inclined to read the main ambiguity slightly differently: the crucial part of the initial ability is "a sensei may use his advice ability when spending points from his ki pool to activate a class ability in order to..."

Since this is asking you to use advice (and not a particular performance) specifically when spending points, it seems akin to saying something like "a bard may use his bardic performance ability when casting a spell in order to change its target." Now the timing is quite odd, and either of these is significantly sloppy wording, but it seems to be asking for you to use advice as part of the same action that costs ki (presumably 1 round of advice I guess?), not to separately have another advice active (in either case, it would be much better if it was more explicit).

But here's the twist! The 10th level ability (where Just a Mort was explaining) asks you to do something completely different (spend a swift action and a ki point while advice is currently active) to grant an ally one of those passive abilities for 1 round.

So then, given the line of spending the action for each, would you say that you need to spend 1 round of Advice + 1 Advice-length action (standard, later move and the later swift) + action for ki power (say swift for speed boost, for example) + Ki cost of ability (for example, 1 for speed boost)? Later at level 10 it is the same for all allies, or if you are doing the newly available single-target options then it becomes spend 1 ki point + Swift action + need to spend Advice points and action to activate a new chosen Advice power OR currently have an ongoing one (like Inspire Courage) active?

Mark,
I constantly find myself coming back to the idea of a Sensei Monk for PFS. Unfortunately, over the many years I’ve wanted to do this, I’ve never received a clear picture of how the Mystic Wisdom advice works. Specifically, does it cost both Ki and Advice/Perfomance uses to activate, and does it take the Ki ability’s action, or does it also take the Advice action? Or is it usable while maintaining Advice?

For a specific illustrative example, let’s use a 6th level sensei trying to Mystic Wisdom his +20’ speed ability to an ally. What does this cost in actions, in Ki, and in Advice rounds? Are there any prerequisites (like currently maintaining an advice power) or caveats (like automatically ending a lingering/maintained advice power)?

Thanks!

Could someone please clarify what can and can’t be made with the Fabricate Tech magic hack? Is it only things in the “technological items” table? Or pretty much anything non-magical that fits the other criteria? Are you truly intended not to be able to fabricate things like flashlights because they use charges, or is the line about charges/uses only intended to limit consumables and items that provide power/uses to other items (as in the examples given after that line of fuel, batteries, etc.?

It seems that if it is just that table, and nothing that uses power, then you’re looking at maybe a half dozen options at most (counting toolkits as a single option)?

Can I suggest that people clearly denote if boons offered and requested are SFS or PFS? There aren't so many around yet that its too too hard to tell, but I think it may get more confusing as time goes on, and keeping down on miscommunications will help deals go more smoothly and amicably. Just my 2 coppers... Err, credits.

So, um... if you're doing the writing thing more and still gonna freelance with Paizo, does that mean that if/when (cross fingers) Pathfinder Tales resume, we can get more (much more??? pretty please) Salim?

Cuz, best Tales ever. Just sayin'.

I find this interesting, because I had a difficult time choosing which boons to take (we unlocked 5), and I do have a little buyers' remorse on one of the two. I was the only one at the table who chose the Spellslinger one, however. Of the five, I found at least 3 of them tempting. My sadness came from having to choose two on the spot at the table in the midst of cleanup and thr usual rush to depart Sagamore (although maybe that wasn't an actual pressure this time due to the overnight slot and I just didn't realize it?). Nonetheless, looking up archetypes and other things in an attempt to make an informed decision on the fly was frustrating. I was not, however, surprised that different boons were available to different paths as this has been true for a number of specials now, and had advised the group I was playing with that it'd probably be good to jump from faction to faction rather than doing multiples for any one. We did, however, start with our own factions... which I think is only sensible from an RP standpoint.

On the note of using past year tokens, when a roll for prize requires more tokens than acquired in an event, people playing a number of events not in multiples of the needed amount have nothing to do with their tokens. Perhaps a roll on a prize table that isn't guaranteed a prize, or lesser prizes, or some such could be purchased with whatever the minimum number of tokens granted by an event is? That way there'd be no temptation to hoard until the following year, and players still get some potential benefit from the tokens they were awarded.

Didn't you just advertise exactly what they said they don't advertise "for a number of reasons"?

In case anyone was curious as to the outcome of last night's game, I made a new level 1 character with four goals: Survivability, Usefulness to the Party, Made only with Books I Already Own (to save money for GenCon), and Use no Consumables (because I'm cheap).

Given the advantage provided by the quest-structure (far stretching out the otherwise very limited resources of a level 1character), I brought a charactee that met all those criteria AND had a flavorful roleplaying personality and theme to boot.

I survived and was useful, even when rushing in to help distract the enemies away from allies that were injured (as a cleric of Chaldira, I could do no less), and as is proper to his deity, his boldness was rewarded with luck (and good allies) that kept him alive and thriving. I had a great time, and hope that my level 1 character helped improve both the fun and success of the table too!

I know that the House of Harmonious Wisdom can be played multiple times as a 1st level character but only once as a higher level character. I am currently signed up to play this soon, and was planning to bring a new level 1 character, or possibly a pregen 1. I have already played it once with a higher level character. Based off of sign-ups, it looks like the table is going to go high tier. So here's the question: Can I play this with a level 4 pregen if I use the "apply to a new level 1 character" rule? If not, am I allowed to play with a level 1 pregen even if the tier is 4-5 (and are there any such pregens likely to survive such an arrangement)? If the answer to both of these is 'no', then I'd like to know ASAP, as I'll need to build a new level 1 character to play.

Thanks!

Mark,
With it being from a soft-cover book, is there any chance or prospectof getting the Questioner archetypre for investigator to ignore Arcane Spell Failure (assuming that, like a bard, it should)? Or is that something that would never happen due to being in a soft-cover book?

Someone pointed out to me today that the Undine Water Sense Trait/Ability calls out blindsense rather than tremorsense when it talks about sensing thigs touching the same body of water. Does this mean that you need line of effect (can't sense someone around a corner, for example) unlike with tremorsense? If so, is that as intended?

What it says is that water blasts (and some other watery attack abilities that would be in the same boat) work at full power underwater, though granted it isn't in print yet.

That is wonderful. Are they still subjected to ranged weapon attack penalties based on every 5' they travel? I'm assuming that under current rules those penalties still apply, yes?

Mr. Seifter has noted elsewhere that the upcoming Aquatic Adventures will specifically discuss how kinetic blasts (especially water blasts) function underwater. ^_^

Didn't even know that such a book was coming out. A shame that I'm in so many water missions right now then, but perhaps I will hold off before playing the 2 upcoming Plane of Water PFS scenarios then. Thanks!

On another note, I find it annoying that a water blasting kineticist seems so poor at attacking in underwater combat (blast-wise). Am I missing something with that? Do you think a conductive underwater crossbow could conduct a fire kinetic blast, or would that fail/need a concentration check to use? Seems silly to have to resort to my fire blast underwater to do damage, when I should be so strong within my water-element, but without steamcaster, it seems this might be my best option? Any ideas are GREATLY appreciated!

I would be very hesitant to say that an ability that says "You can do X when casting a spell" would work where an otherwise identical ability that appended "without affecting the spell slot required" would not.

I agree, which is why I chose not to give my PFS undine hydro/pyro-kineticist steamcaster with much sadness. That said, I do think that an important difference between the rod and steamcaster is that the rod mentions the slots (which SLAs don't have) and employs metamagics (which revolve around slots), whereas steamcaster is utilized by a change of casting time, which an SLA explicitly has. It seems that both mechanically/rules-lawyery-wise and balance-wise that is a potentially notable distinction. But alas, as flavor-perfect and balanced as the steamcaster option would be in the kineticist situation, I agree that the entire SLA issue is best avoided in PFS for people who are exceedingly cautious about not straying from the rules, even accidentally. I do, however, feel that the examples of Spell Focus working with SLA (such as in Bestiary entries) suggests that it is a perfectly reasonable interpreation for the Affinity trait to work with Kineticist SLAs, personally. I do wish we'd eventually get some sort of clear signal on things like this and bardic masterpieces at some point, however, as I hate tip-toeing around options and feeling guilty that I may unwittingly be cheating.

Renkosuke wrote:

Coincidentally, would this also mean that feats like Elemental Focus and the Affinity for the Elements trait don't function with Kinetic Blasts?

There's a spectrum of possibilities on the spell vs. SLA question, and I have a post back somewhere where I tried to rate the likelihoods of various options on that spectrum, while ultimately there's no clear cutoff. "Casts" is one useful word to look for, and it separates the feats from the trait, making the trait less likely to apply. In the case of the racial abilities, as I mentioned in Isabelle's linked post, not only do they use cast, they go out of their way to list several class abilities that are SLAs (and groupings whose activated portions contain only SLAs) as applying under an "or" when compared to casting a spell, whereas that would be an odd (but not impossible) choice if the spellcasting was supposed to already cover it.

That was in reply to one of my threads on the rules forum. It has shaped my newest kineticist greatly, and while I took the trait (because it is worded pretty much just like spell focus which there is decent evidence of working with SLAs) but not the steamcaster feat I'd love so very much. That said, and I pretty much always agree with and defer to your rules logic when making rulings, your SLA logic I find a bit off. Specifically, the section in the Magic part of the CRB that talks about SLAs mentions them having a "casting time" and, at the very end, talks about how an SLA of certain qualities "is cast at the class level the ability is granted." To me, they must therefore truly be cast, and the distinguishing factor as to what does/doesn't work should be if something like 'slots' or 'prepared' or some such are referenced (including not using higher slots as usual, ala metamagic rods). Is there something I'm missing in that analysis, or does that seem reasonable to you, Mark?

I would, but the entire reason I rushed the character into existence prior to psychic anthology was because the series of modules being run at my flgs is perfect for the character rp-wise. Good RP is worth 5 prestige.

Seems like I found my answer. Mwangi/Polyglot for those who seek the answer to this question in the future.

It isn't written for natural weapons, as it is a weapon enchantment and, barring things like AoMF, cannot usually be applied to natural weapons. The lack of calling out how to handle such a corner case is reasonable and shouldn't be seen as a loophole. I too would rule that the two-handed weapon case shows clear intent and should be the model for the natural attack situation presented.

Mark, sorry but I have another: Hydrokineticist (Water Blast) and underwater combat. If it makes a difference, the character also has the Aquatic subtype (and Amphibious). Are the water blasts super-penalized: -2 attack plus -2 per 5', halved damage due to bludgeoning? Or does being aquatic and/or the fact that you're manipulating the water negate any of those penalties?

Mark,

Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the product thread (so I decided on both). In Pyschic Anthology the Slick infusion says that Reflex Negates, but only seems to affect the terrain of the area of your blast, not those in it. Do those in or entering the area make a reflex save to treat the area as non-difficult terrain? Was the save supposed to be 'none'? Was this supposed to also potentially prone those who failed their saves, a la grease?

Inquiring minds, namely mine, want to know!

Thanks!

I think part of the problem here is the concept of when 'downtime' begins. There is nothing that says that it needs to start immediately after a mission is successful, as you've apparently imposed upon your players. For example, diseases, curses, etc. still exist 'real time' rather than in downtime for resolving, even after a mission is successful. As was mentioned this doesn't change which effects can carry over to the next game, but it does mean that effects legal to carry over (such as heightened continual flames, spell storing on your own weapon/armor, etc.) could potentially be prepped and charged at the end of the scenario, after the mission succeeds, but before official 'downtime' starts. Can you do faction missions during that time too? I'd certainly allow it, so long as the store wasn't closing or something. I might limit them to staying local.... so no walking 1000 miles over 6 months to a settlement of 5000+ people to do a faction mission that must occur in such a place, but a mission that can happen locally the next day? Why not? The job of a GM (particularly in regards to faction missions) is to enable fun, not compete with the players. With regards to the OP for example, "...to kick my ass" certainly sounds to me of an adversarial rather than cooperative role between GM and players, which I find concerning.

Mybig anticipation is kinetic invocation, and whether that could make elemental affinity worth keeping rather than trading out for my upcoming Undine Hydrokineticist. Given that racial trait retrains are 20pp, it'd be awesome to find out prior to the series of watery sessions my lodge has planned in the near future.

He's married. Let's face it, what's his is hers and what's hers is hers as well. Are we really going to be splitting hairs on the ownership of non-titled properties within an immediate nuclear familial unit?

I think the very fact that the Use Scroll umd description mentions that you may require an additional check if your attribute score isn't high enough, but never makes mention of needing to emulate a class ability if you aren't a caster, gives good RAI weight towards not needing that emulate class ability check. The attribute score is a requirement from the scroll use section, and there's no good reason to clarify that that additional check may be needed, but not to specify the class ability emulation as potentially needed, unless it never is.

I further suggest that the fact that the DC for scroll use being based on caster level rather than spell level (such as the one for deciphering a scroll) makes more sense as being explained that it is because you are emulating the caster level as part of that activation roll. Using a cl 5 magic missile scroll instead of a cl 1 magic missile scroll is harder due to needing to meet or beat the cl of a scroll you are using (under normal scroll use), not because the spell is harder to add to your 'spell list', because they're the same spell. That extra difficulty due to requiring the user be of a higher CL is built into the DC of the Use Scroll UMD check. If that implication is true, and the Use Scroll dc is based on emulating that caster level, then it is reasonable that the emulated caster level must be of a type, arcane or divine, as needed for the scroll.

Finally, I think this RAI interpretation continues to be reasonable if you consider the Emulate Class Ability DC, which is 20. What you need to do to use a scroll ability-wise is the arcane/divine casting ability at a certain caster level. A sensible way to do that, and to represent the additional difficulty to mimic higher caster levels, would be to add the caster level desired to the difficulty of emulating an arcane or divine casting ability at all. Doing so would give us a DC of 20 + caster level.... precisely the DC given for Use Scroll.

I think that, particularly in conjunction with one another, these observations give a strong RAI argument for not requiring a separate use of the Emulate Class Ability when using UMD to activate a scroll.

Hey, Mark! I was just wondering if Elemental Whispers (Wild Talent) counts as a familiar for being able to apply archetypes to your elemental buddy. Also, can said buddy use skills (well, non-physical skills) or take mental actions when not manifested, or do you need to manifest it for it to actually be an entity capable of actions (such as making knowledge or perception checks)?

DrakeRoberts wrote:

I have not played my pfs bard for over a year in large part because they can't get this ruling out. Well, that and the Aasimar FCB nerf. I wish they'd rule on this already so I can play him again.

If that's a show stopper for you, do like I did with my 15th level bard in a local homecampaign: remove all the masterpieces from your character and swap them for additional spells known. Not only will you have a more versatile and useful bard, but you'll also know where you stand in terms of the rules.

I could, but without an FAQ indicating a change, I'd need to pay retrain costs for each such change. Not to mention, I'd planned the character around masterpieces so I'm loathe to change it up until decided. It's unfortunate, because I do so much rules checking prior to making a character, and for a long time the biggest thing we had to go on was James Jacobs saying they worked fine. By this point, I no longer even recall how that advice changed.

Shadow Transmutation and Baleful Shadow Transmutation each list themselves as level 6 Medium spells. But Medium spells only go up to level 4. Should these be level 4 spells, or should they be removed from the Medium list entirely?

DrakeRoberts wrote:

claudekennilol wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Tim Statler wrote:

To minimize Geek Sodoku, we post each month's offering ahead of time on Warhorn.net. That way everyone knows what is offered and when.

Which results in people not showing up, which is a HUGE problem when you have a small group.

I'm confused, how does having people sign up and commit in advance result with people not showing up?

This has happened to me in our own lodge. There are usually 2 games a month I can make. It has happened, on more than one occasion, that there are no non-core games that day that I can play... And at times they already have GMs or I've already GM'd them.

So you play/GM CORE, right?

No, so I stay at home with my family. I believe I made my stance on CORE quite clear upstream. I have zero interest in a campaign that would only make me regret having spent hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in books that I couldn't use. I think CORE is a great concept for those who don't have the money for other sources, or who don't want to spend money on other sources. But I made my opinion clear locally on CORE when we started it here that I was concerned it would take away from non-CORE tables and make it even harder for people like me to find a game, and despite well-intended assurances, I certainly believe that has been the case from time to time.

But of course, I'm also in one of the gamer-centric cities. Options available to me aren't even available to others elsewhere. My belief is that the OPs suggestion is a good way to maintain an active, dedicated player base. Most people in this area involved with PFS when I started have ceased playing, at least some of which, to my understanding, was due to not finding games they could play.

There is potentially a monetary cost to GMing. More importantly, however, there is a large time cost. There is also some level of ability, social attitude, and confidence needed to GM even if one is allowed to GM or wants to GM.

I'm big on sharing the GMing responsibilities, and I'm big on educating and helping develop GMs. I thibk that there are a lot of good life skills that can be learned from GMing distinct from the ones obtained by playing, and that if the Society can help better and educate it's members while having fun, then all the better. I'm passionate about these things, but not every lodge can do that, and not every player can find their inner GM or feel comfortable knowing the vast array of options out there to fairly adjudicate a game in a timely manner.

I've covered my opinion on CORE play as an option, and why I think it's a poor substitute for a replay option like the one proposed in the OP. As for limiting one's chronicle sheets by not GMing... I don't play solely for chronicle sheets, I play for the fun and for roleplaying my character. GM sheets are fine and great if you're trying to get a boon, or an item, or get your character to a more 'exciting' level or whatever, but I'd much rather advance my character through play than through GMing, and that's what the OP is all about.... it's about being more likely to sit at a table and play with your fellow Society members, not about getting a chronicle sheet. The benefit to replay with a sheet rather than without one is so you can advance your character and play it at levels other than 1 or 2.

However, expect EXTREME table variation -- some GMs may view your 'peg leg' condition to be something that 'needs to be cleared' at the end of a scenario via such means as 'Regenerate'.

In addition, what purpose does starting with peg legs serve the rest of the table, aside from potentially crippling the overall mobility of the entire party?

EDIT: Also, why do we keep looking for 'niche' cases? Is it really necessary?

Are you really trying to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to roleplay in an rpg because it will reduce the party's movement speed? Should dwarves or Lame oracle halflings also be bannned?

Many people play rpg's to immerse themselves in a life not their own. This is why odd cases come up, because they are sought out as unique and interesting challenges, both tactically and from a roleplay perspective.