I really hope the Kobolds win by killing the fighter... I mean jeesh. Let's kill a bunch of sentient creatures for funzies... Wait that's Friday night age of ashes. I feel attacked!
What about death? Lets say my Eidolon gets hit by a death effect and brought to 0 HP. They dead. But are they really? If I get some HP from a heal spell, can I just manifest them again on my turn? Please note, unlike animal companions and familiars there doesn't appear to be language about getting another eidolon...
Someone check to make sure Tonya didn't just meet a shadowy ninja associated with a certain museum owning family...
I actually have argued that it's a misreading of the rules that a failure means you cannot try again. I think only on a failure after you've already succeeded once does that section apply since it's literally titled Additional Knowledge. The word successful may have been edited out. Should probably read as, "Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a successful check to Recall Knowledge". In the recall knowledge action description itself there is no failure outcome which seems like a glaring omission if it was intended indeed that a PC can't try again.
From my own interpretation, the RAW is clear, they are dead in your above scenario. Their turn doesn't magically extend until their new spot in the initiative, which by the way is their own damn turn as in this case they're actually moving to just before their current turn; Cordell is wrong on this point you move before the TURN that's active, not the creature's turn that knocked you out. This is an errata so check the 2nd printing (CRB 459). This is actually pretty explicitly the player led to their own demise, so no agency was lost in that sense, which is the only time I as a GM try go out of my way to not kill a player character. If the party did something that led to someone being killed, well that's on them.
Some of the spells in 2e allow you to attempt a counteract check but have durations greater than a single round. Some examples include: True Seeing, Nondetection, and Aqueous Orb. The CRB is broadly silent about how these spells are meant to function after their initial counteract check. Interestingly some spells do specify what happens after a failed initial check (Aqueous Orb for instance). There it'll say that after a failed check the spell/effect cannot try to counteract again. But that makes it an interesting problem. Many times in the CRB for 2e it's significant when there is a specifically called out example of something not being possible in one instance, but in others it is silent and often presumed to be permissive. Here we are left to wonder. Is there a general rule that the limitations of Aqueous Orb and the like are circumscribing such that True Seeing attempts to counteract an illusion/transmutation every round so long as you are within 60 feet of the effect and the spell's duration has yet to expire. Or is the specific callout of Aqeous Orb restating what was already true and you attempt the counteract only once per effect? How would this interact with Constant True Seeing and the like. Maybe I'm missing something in the rules, but this looks like it needs an FAQ.
In fact, horse specifically allows you to pick large or medium for your companion size, depending on whether you want a horse or a pony (or some other medium equine) Just don't ever get a mature animal companion horse or you don't have a pony anymore *grumble in halfling*
When I'm focusing on the rider, they all somehow seem to have a mount, when I look at the horse it's very obvious there's only one horse with a rider that has four images. Magic is very weird and any practitioners must be eliminated.
I am not aware of a list, but Machiol Quinto has drawn numerous Hellknights over the years. That said, look at the Frontmatter, it'll have a list of all the artists who drew for the book. They all have an artstation or deviant art page you can browse to see some of the selections of their work.
This seems like the kind of thing where the boon should open the option up to a different character than played the scenario, since choosing a Patron is something only one class does, and that it does at character creation. It's probably too much to hope that's the case. The boon indeed does allow it to be applied to a character other than the one who played it. It seems to be a trend that character options in terms of feats, patrons, etc are either opened up for all characters (see Fire Embers stance) or for only one character who doesn't have to be the character who unlocked the option. Items and spells are the exception to this, and without Bequethal options after the 31st (and really only for people who played a lot last year) there's no way to pass those on to other characters.
So how does one obtain a boon that allows me to play a Baba Yaga Witch? There's a community taboo against revealing spoilers for boons as it often spoils the plot of various scenarios for everyone. I will confirm that a boon which allows you to choose Baba Yaga is in PFS, and is readily accessible to all players and does not require a charity auction boon.
I'm saddened that AoE isn't going to be sanctioned. It's a great way for people to explore how they want police forces to act. Having played thru to level 4 in the AP it very much seems to be up to GMs and players to interpret how the laws are enforced. Ive gotten hints that we get to fight corruption in the Edgewatch as well if we so desire. Graddok the Warpriest of Angradd Bountyhunter will just have to gaze at the Grand Lodge wistfully it seems.
The Pathfinders also have the potential to be one of the biggest banks on Golarion. With their lodges all over the place, they could carry certain valuables to and from anywhere. And that presence means that letters of credit (not to mention other bearer instruments) drawn on the Pathfinder Society's assets could no doubt be used as currency nearly anywhere in the civilized world. Careful, the Pathfinders don't want to end up like the fabled Knights Templar... They may upset a monarch who owes them a lot of money.
Assurance: "...You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill..."
Risky surgery requires you to "roll a success", assurance forgoes a roll. So no, they do not combine.
Totally agree with the bandolier weirdness. It either is another point for actually using tools when listed as having them being required, or is a useless bit of verbage that got added for some reason to make the community go nuts later.
First, explaining how all of them require a free hand is not necessary. The manipulate trait makes each one unique as it says "suitable appendage" to physically manipulate (*note - it uses must) an item OR make gestures. So it's an either or. Either you are manipulating an item or you're not. You either need a hand or other graspy appendage to steal an item from someone, or you need to be able to whirl your appendage thru the air to make some gesture to widen a spell. You can ignore this either or in three threads now if you like, or acknowledge that not all of the manipulate tagged feats have the same appendage requirements. As for Battle Medicine, it has the manipulate tag, and requires healer's tools. Camp A says you're manipulating the tools, Camp B says you're making gestures or whatever. Camp A is making a constructive argument, Camp B is making a selective strict reading argument. We won't know who's right until the powers that be say anything else, so lets just move on. They obviously know there's some division in the community about it.
To make matters worse the Skinsitch salve consumable requires you to hold it in hand to use it with treat wounds or battle medicine as a free action. Since this free action follows the rules of a reaction, it'd be impossible to use the item when you held the healers tools, as the trigger is "You treat wounds or use battle medicine". If you were holding the healers tools all your hands are occupied, leading to a catch 22 for that use of the skinstich item. Frankly that item is a big point in favor of those who argue battle medicine doesn't require hands.
I would reiterate what Paul said. Online games assume you have your character ready to go, by and large. There's no reason you couldn't play a pregenerated character, but ultimately it's up to the person offering the game. My advice would be to join the Pathfinder Society Organized Play discord server. Games are run there all the time. Link: http://pfschat.com There are two or three visually impaired players. As opposed to other communities, society play (aka organized play) has various guidelines about being a better person than your average netizen. In fact if you don't have a character the GM is supposed to offer you a pregenerated character made by Paizo to show off the class. Not always "optimized", but they do what they're supposed to. The full rules for organized play can be found here: http://www.organizedplayfoundation.org/encyclopedia/pfs2guide/ Short version, anything that is uncommon is not available as a character option. If you take a commonly available option, it may open up uncommon options. Like bards get access to the uncommon spell "Inspire Courage", or someone from the nation of New Thassalon can speak the uncommon language Thassalonian. Otherwise, build to your hearts content.
It's in creature statblocks whether they are immune to Bleed damage or not. If it's not in the statblock for immunity, then they can bleed. You may house-rule it a different way, but the statblocks for monsters trump the other bits. Squiggit is correct on his point in that regard. So yes Skeletons (all undead really) can bleed, but constructs and elementals cannot.
When would you be wielding Healer's Tools or Thief's Tools, though, as a Core option? I was always under the impression that activities requiring access to these things would require actually using them (read: wield) to perform the activity. Except now everyone is arguing that it isn't, per RAW, with each activity listing the apparent amount of free hands needed, and therefore the Hands listing on the kits becomes superfluous and pointless to include, as it can mislead players. There's a vocal contingent who thinks that the "have tools" means you don't need to actually use the tool. Which is absurd, as you've come to with your positive construction. If there's a requirement for the tools, it's because you need to use them. You don't have to wield them as per the pg 272 rules, but you are limited by the pg 287 rules about how many hands to use said tools. Now they're going to jump in and say, "but the ability doesn't say you need to use the tools, just have them! and Pg 272 accounts for that!". To which I say, uh huh. Then why the manipulate trait? What am I manipulating? Oh the Item listed in the manipulate description, which is the tool! They do a song and dance about balance etc, but they strain credulity.
The free hand requirement is actually a liberating statement here, it's telling you that you don't need two free hands to use the tools otherwise specified in the table. The same as the Medic's Treat Condition feat ability.
Hi Morgen, There are tons of games run online, and most are listed on Warhorn. I'll briefly sketch out what you might find there. * Organized Play Online (OPO) Region games which are often listed on Warhorn and are announced via the Online Region discord (http://pfschat.com)
For OPO games, you should definitely join the discord. There are other communities (Glasscannon Podcast, Roll For Combat Podcast community, Cosmic Critmanders, etc) who cross-post. For local lodges, some have always used Warhorn for signups, and now they're switched to online play. Typically they'll be happy to have people walk in, but often times you'll get a few strange looks if you don't say Hi first. I'd join their event and then message the organizer and ask if they'd welcome a player from outside their local lodge. It's a bit funny with COVID and wandering in. Personally, when I travel and I'm free I try to hit-up the local lodges. Have played with four random lodges that way. Tl, dr: Join the event and message the organizer.
After some prodding by the PFS community maps are being trimmed of their boarders so you can drag and drop them onto a grid without too much fiddling. Not sure if this has made it into the AP line yet. You may also have noticed that images don't have wonky dimensions and extraneous matting when you copy them out of the PDFs.
/Running notes/
2) It appears to be impossible to free the wizard trapped as a stone statue by the rules. Players may have access to a Greater Remove Paralysis consumable via 1-01, however this is a level 12 item and would require players to be level 10 to purchase off the chronicle. (AKA not possible within the level range). The spell to remove the effective flesh to stone is also similarly out of reach of the tiers this scenario runs in. Yet it's a reporting condition, so I guess none of us are going to be seeing this wizard anytime soon. 3) When first entering part C Arcana of Ahkenefti, make sure you explain to your players they've gotten turned into runes, it's not in the greentext and can be easy to miss. 4) The Djinn, Janni are seemingly written as being around/present by the portals themselves. When I ran this, the PCs totally tried to talk to them. I'd have a plan for how you want to handle that as it's not called out how they'd act by my reading of the scenario. They could provide some background about how they're from Nethys' realm, which would be fun to RP. 5) Rift of Radiant Chaos, can have multiple creatures who are capable of creating a mist, yet a single mist will cover most of the center. The tactics seem to indicate they cast both blur and obsucring mist, for two rounds worth of actions. Which seems pretty steep. A party with even two people with assurance medicine can nearly finish all the bridge before an actual combat occurs. May be better to split the difference and have a single obscuring mist for the center island. 6) Part G with the Witchwyrds, these poor trapped souls. A party who wants to parlay will be hard pressed to understand why they're being attacked. I'd assume Eliza has her wayfinder visible as in the art, and call the party out for that. Very confused party members all around if there's no combat banter here to explain their feelings of betrayl by "Rainfickle"
Isn't that this thread Gary? Feedback: PFS (2nd Edition) Guide to Play? But to your point, I believe the word acquire is the problem since it leads to as Ferious Thune points out all the problems with consumables or sundering. He also had somewhat good wording that circumscribes what it means to earn a treasure bundle, which I'll clean up some. "PCs earn the item/treasure bundle if they find it, if they make the required roll to know the bundle is there or other check as specified in the scenario text, if they defeat the creature in possession or guarding the treasure bundle they earn the treasure bundle associated with the creature regardless of the bundle's condition. Unless otherwise specified in the scenario text, once the PCs have earned the treasure bundle as laid out above they earn that bundle on their chronicle sheet regardless of its condition at the end of the scenario." This needs to be addressed directly and specifically by campaign leadership to cut off this kind of GM behavior before it becomes a much bigger problem. If it’s intentional that it is supposed to be a choice between getting the treasure bundle, but earning infamy, or not earning infamy, but also not getting the treasure bundle, then we need to be told that directly as well. Otherwise we’re just saying we’re ok with GMs arbitrarily deciding what rewards a scenario grants, which is completely counter to the position the campaign took in the previous system. Yes, precisely. Scenario tone varies by author, and the guide can help smooth that out to prevent the table variance which I'm starting to see as a player, and try to avoid as a GM.
Sure you can. The scenario text is explicit with what earns primary and secondary successes. The guide to play can be explicit about what it means to earn a treasure bundle. If you're arguing the text is clear that's one thing, but you're saying the GM has final say in interpreting the guide, and I'm saying that there shouldn't be a need to interpret the guide and have differing views. Here's some text from a scenario slightly modified to obscure items and location. Reward: If the PCs search the room for valuables and succeed at a relevant DC 18 Crafting or Society skill check, they locate a Mcguffin (worth 8 gp) and several objects (worth 20 gp). These valuables represent 1 Treasure Bundle. Do the PCs have to take these items to earn the treasure bundle? In the context of that scenario the items are property of someone who isn't their enemy or aggressor. It'd be out and out theft. In this scenario its a treasure bundle (in another infamy), do PCs know its their loot by virtue of it being valuable? As I originally said, the word aquire is problematic in the text of the field guide as it isn't well defined, and scenario loot says 'represents' without really explaining to players in game they should consider it theirs now and they should take it. If acquire means satisifies the skill check, or overcoming the encounter, or out and out spots it and could take it then a different wording is needed. If acquire means possessing it there become several problems I won't go into yet as I dont think that's what the guide intends. I agree with Gary. The GM has the final say on the events that transpire at their table, but they should be open to feedback and demonstrate the Society tenet of cooperation ... then you are encouraged to forward your concerns to the local Venture-Officers to investigate. If they agree, they can stop using them as a GM. Or you could just stop playing at their table. If they are being unreasonable about treasure bundles, chances are there are other issues as well. You're missing the point. I contend it shouldn't be a GM call if you got a treasure bundle or not anymore than its a GM call if you succeeded at a primary or secondary condition.
The guidance on treasure bundles is starting to lead to a bit of table variance, specifically the word "acquired". For instance, in a scenario where you might encounter a treasure bundle on a corpse, but you don't loot the corpse, because A) you're in a tavern, and B) the corpse is of a local sheriff type. The players saw the valuable treasure, there wasn't a check to know they're valuable, and they honored the dead and don't take them. Later when the corpse and the boots were ruled "destroyed" by events in the scenario leading the GM to say it's destroyed, while two other regular GMs playing vehemently disagreed on the ruling to no avail. Should players simply assume they must take anything of value not nailed down, or is the guide meant to state that if you encounter the treasure, make whatever skillcheck to find it and it should appear on the chronicle sheet?
Oh dear god this is high on my wishlist. Right up there with auto-filled PDFs emailed to players based on reported info. Lost a sheet? No problem, generate another one from your portal.
Guidance on Running: Be aware of the new ruling that parties with a challenge point total of 16-18 run low if they have 5 or more players. Additionally, in low-tier there are no secondary antagonists. The layout made it appear that they should be there, and the second time I ran it I included them thinking their statblock hadn't been included in the appendix again from the fight in part A. First time I ran I did it based on the appendix, but thought it odd there was a big box on the map for secondary antagonists that weren't there, so I dropped them on the party in my second run. This led to a TPK, which we retconned when I was combing the scenario sure I had screwed up. The players were all good sports and thought it was just the crits, but it seemed fishy to me. With three crits in a single round I downed 3 of 5, and one had been downed the prior round. I estimated 1 of them should've still been up if I hadn't screwed up, the secondary antagonists had done a fair bit of softening up of the party, wasting a player's turn on healing, and taking down one character prior to the crits knocking out three players. Suspicious things to note: Goblin skeletons have 20 HP and are -1 creatures. Normal skeletons have 4 HP. The goblin skeletons appear to be normal skeletons in all regards except HP. Their weapons are somewhat diminished, doing a d6 and lacking a bow, but this design doesn't appear to fit with a -1 creature that has so much damage resist.
When reporting Plaguestone for PF2 the reputation is brought down to 8 by some internal process, even though it should be 12 and was initially reported as such. Subsequently tried to update the session with the correct reputation of 12 and was again brought back to 8 upon save. This is for both GM and players.
So, when looking at the GM resources at the end to get chronicles written, it looks as if the gold earned table is a tad off from the other scenarios. For a level 1, Gold earned is 3.5 gp. This is compared to 1.4 gp for all three scenarios currently released 1-01,1-02, and 1-03. Other levels are similarly off by the same 2.5 factor. Did someone do some maths incorrectly and multiplied instead of divided?
So it would seem. Elsewhere it specifically calls out the lack of minimum 1 meaning 0. |
Venture-Agent, Washington—Seattle 153 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 25 Organized Play characters. 
