FlorianF's page

Organized Play Member. 57 posts. 8 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Aratorin wrote:
Uncontrollable Dance is basically Slow+, and it has the Incapacitation Trait, so yes, I'd say Slow not having the Trait is by design.

Aren't you here supposing the rules reveal design intentions that are fully realized with no error? Clearly there are rules that are errors, though!

One could then as easily argue that Slow not having incap is a mistake, when compared to UD.

It's an open discussion whether slow should be incap, but not when compared to other spells, in particular Paralyze, which is the same level and range etc.

Slow: -/Slow1/Slow1 1 min/ Slow2 1 min
Paralyze: -/Stun1/Paralyze 1 rnd /Paralyze 4 rnd with saves

Because Stun and Slow are pretty much the same, would you rather be Slow1 1 minute or Slow3 1 round? rather Slow2 1 min or Slow3 for possibly 4 rounds?

Clearly I'd rather be paralyzed 1 round (F)
However because most fights don't last one minute, I'd rather be slow 2 (CF)
HOWEVER if cast on a higher-level, then Paralyze becomes
-/-/Stun1/Paralyze 1 rnd, at which point Slow is *unarguably* better.

I really don't think that's intended. It probably stems from Slow having been improved at some point in design comapred to Stun.

I've had look at all 1-6 incap spells, and frankly it's all over the place. Some could lose the incap without much consequence, others (such as Color Spray) are poweful even with it.

A good indication here is the newer spells, such as Phantom Prison, Behold the Weave (compare to Deja Vu!), which seems more reasonable. By reasonable I mean no extreme effect, regardless of incap.

There used to be a stipulation on PF1:

"You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. "

Also Grab an Edge allows catching yourself *in mid-flight* with a single hand.

Finally, notice how the Climbing Kit still says nothing, implying you need two hands even if "attached to the wall", which seems a bit radical.

So I don't think the argument "of course you need 2 hands to hold on to the wall" is overwhelming. And even if you'd allow 1-hand maintain, Combat Climber would still make a big difference.

I'd be fine either way, but there's definitely a rule missing there(*), and this situation does crop up in-game.
As @Garretmander points out, the closest thing to a written rule is to ask the PC for a Grab an Edge check. But the action results don't fit well - you're not falling, so what damage would you take? And if you CS, can you mysteriously let go of *both* hands? That's isn't working well...

It'd need a simple sentence to say 1H or 2H, and be done with it. And while they're at it, specify exactly how you're meant to handle Climb speed and extreme climbs: "take 10+4"? "take 20+4"?

(*) In fact, an obtuse rule-laywer could argue that the PF2 rule mentions "climbing up", not "staying put", which is not an action, so that you are NOT F-F and can use BOTH hands while on a cliff side but stationnary!

Will there be a Roll20 version as there was for Plaguestone?

Alchemical Wonder wrote:
Turns out Disarming Twist for fighters fits the bill. It allows you to strike and make a disarm attempt with the same action but requires you to have a free hand to grab your opponents weapon.

Good catch, but it doesn't say quite that. It says you get the crit effect of disarm, but it doesn't say you can grab the weapon!

So the mystery behind the disarm property's comment on taking the item remains...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracomicron wrote:
Uncle Altronus's Ship Stop and Gunnery Shop

That's what those Kasathas are hiding under those scarves: moustaches.

Scythia wrote:
The Cleric in my group wears a holy symbol on a bracelet, so it's always conveniently at hand.

It makes sense, but RAW, doesn't work. That's the whole issue.

You must hold it - but you don't need it. (same goes for mistletoe, btw)

If you could use this trick, that would work with a wrist-wand, or wrist-dagger. Wait for Ultimate Jewelry.

An issue with non-emblazoned clerics...

* A holy symbol replaces S and M, but you must wield it beforehand, which is annoying if you cast a VSM spell or are wielding e.g. a crossbow.
* Whereas a pouch requires zero action to use
* You are not *required* to use, or even own, a symbol. And you *can* use a pouch.

So, RAW, why would you wield a symbol?

I think the intent is that drawing, wielding, then stashing back the symbol (or simply touching it) is part of M or S action. But that's not clear (p. 195).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I made a 3D model of the SM. It eschews the long trailing fins at the back, because they would be too flimsy. Also, the upright fins are there, but you might have difficulty printing them correctly, as they're so thin.

The model is about space-map scale, as is. Just scale it up in your slicer to make a display model. 400% is fine.

You should be able to view and download the STL here:
3D sunrise maiden

Tried it yesterday with the houseruled Coilgun that can fire every other round. Was good. I allowed the engineer to Direct Power to the coilgun, allowing to fire every round.
So that kind of solved one of many starship combat issues...

I also nerfed shield regen to "its regen value (as per p. 302) on each side". Good thing, because the fight already dragged on enough to have allowed them to replenish their shields fully two times over.

Btw, Coilgun is bad. But the Particle Beam vs. Railgun is just crazy. I'm really confident now that they left off some special rule and forgot to redo the costs.

This classic issue has also pretty much broken SF's falling rules, to the point it would require an errata.
Indeed, the ability to cushion a fall now makes very little difference, because nonlethal is regular damage as long as it doesn't down you. And if it does, then it makes little sense that a large fall only knocks you out!

It used to make a difference in PF, beause you could heal nonlethal much faster.

D&D4E had the same "last-hp" nonlethal rule as SF, but the falling rules took that into account: acrobatics would reduce damage, not convert it.

Re: divert shield. The easy option would be increasing the DC. Another would be to take the added shield point out of excess PCU (the one you're not using), rather than the produced one.

It looks like a Breastplate situation (oh no! not again!) or a mere oversight (I hope).
An errata I would like would be to add a limitation to the coilgun:
* can fire every other round?
* cannot fire in the first range increment?

Same for the persistent particle gun.

Also, it feels like the starship weapon description section was just removed from the book. There's a lot of it (sometimes redundant) for weapons, why none at all for starships?


Running it tomorrow. I still have no idea how Thrune's to be scaled for 4PCs, so I'm going to simply disable his artifacts, considering they're in dormancy for some reason, giving him the spear as a plain magical spear.

Also, I'm not convinced by some GMs' use of plane shift as an offensive spell. I know it's legit (though I'm really not sure it was originally planed to be used that way in 3.5), but I question whether the creature would use it, knowing it has to support Thrune and Lissala in the future (not to mention being offensively plane-shifted itself). That's the same issue there is with the limited wish(es): it was specifically told to keep them to assist Thrune, so... that would be a last-ditch spell.


There's nothing for scaling the final fight for 4 PCs. That's quite significant and odd. Did I miss something?

(I know you get a free disabled rune, but that you would likely get from having 5 PCs in the rune sequence AND then have an extra PC to attack the runelord as well.)


Apart from the mistake with 36 (which hsa 9 factors but can be replaced with 40), the puzzle has a big flaw: the hint! It's obscure and leads to weird conclusion, related to the "century", "fewest steps", and waste of time and frustration.

For the non-purists, here's an alternate one:

In the tower of the multiple
Avoid that is made of many
Step into what is unique
To reach the prize you seek

And also remove the doors numbered "1", replacing them with "reset doors". Though 1 is not a prime number, this is a technical detail that could be overlooked, and a rather valid interpretation of the rule would be to step into the 1 doors twice in a row. In fact, because there's always a prime door, they number 1 doors can be removed altogether.

And the dwarf statue? Great way to throw players off-track if they don't have a Qadira in the team!

Avh wrote:
Again, it's an errata that fix almost nothing, but make everyone happy with it...

Eh. I rather agree. It adds a new way to leverage stealth, but doesn't clear up the fundamental isssue of "not aware" thing that hasn't been changed and is not a clear rule wording.

Playing with the errata, I still feel like I have to make judgment calls for which I am convinced that different GMs will make different decisions.

mplindustries wrote:
If you are stealthed and attack, then move zero squares and hide, what happens is that .... They immediately know exactly where you are and then you stealth again. Even though they can't see you anymore, they still know where you were and that you didn't move anywhere.

Makes a lot of sense BUT. My point hangs on the odd "Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment".

IF it refers to combat stealth situations, then if you are in plain view of you foe, move up to a column that affords regular cover, you can hide, and then though the foes knows well in what square you are *they are "not aware of you" meaning they would have to ignore you*, and that makes no sense.

Same goes for the cheap-sniping I describe.

So, that odd sentence should be taken to be meaningful only out of combat when your opponent is not aware of you to start with. There should be some clarification that creatures in combat are always aware of the position of all creatures that don't have total cover (though they would still be denied dex from stealthy creatures)

Sorry posting error, reposting.

If you are hidden at start of turn, shoot, then use a MA to move zero square and hide again, because you're using Stealth your opponent is now "not aware" of where you are, eventhough he was a second ago.

Technically, this is exactly what the sniping maneuver does... except with a -20 to the check.

(Also this works even if you're behind a lonely column right in the middle of the room... I agree that the enemy can "not fully track your movement" but not "not aware of where I am")


Here's the situation (assuming I always beat my enemies' perception)

A1 - I'm hidden at start of turn
A2 - Std Act: I shoot at flat-footed victim, declaring Sniping action.
A3 - Move action: I hide again at -20.
Victim didn't know what hit it.

B1 - I'm hidden at start of turn
B2 - Std Act: I shoot at flat-footed victim. Right after my attack I'm seen.
B3 - Move Action: I move zero square and hide again, with no mod.

According to the rules, because my stealth is a success my opponent is "not aware" of where I am. He doesn't know where I am eventhough he was an instant before. So basically he *knew* what hit it.. but forgot.
That's even if I'm right behind a column or tree. And I avoided the -20!


Grick wrote:
FlorianF wrote:
Anyways... spiked gauntlets are a light weapon.
All the fist-type weapons are light weapons. Gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cestus, etc.

Well, no. Look at the PRD. The (plain) gauntlets are "unarmed attacks" and the spiked gauntlets are a "light weapon".


Anyways... spiked gauntlets are a light weapon. You cannot wield a two-handed weapon while wielding spiked gauntlets, period. You can wield a single spiked gauntlets and then a one-handed weapon in the other hand, which make the whole reach discussion (barring the small lance issue, but...).
It's like a dagger, not like gauntlets (which are in the "unarmed weapons" category for a reason). You can't wield a dagger AND a 2H weapon at the same time, right? (leaving aside the Quick Draw question)

Does somebody have *any* example of an untyped bonus in any other spell - or power?

All in all, I can understand the elegance in having progressive morale conditions, but it's a combo trap. It would have been better to not have this shaken--> frighten --> panick stacking at all, and use ad hoc rules only, to prevent the inevitable abuse and tricky questions.

I'd really like the spell to be clarified. Especially whether or not the non-haste-like effects stack with "similar effects", such as a plain bless, inspire courage or expeditous retreat.

Untyped bonusses are rare. It would seem plausible that the Intent is that no Blessing of Fervor effect stacks with anything, because you can always choose another effect.

(Side-note: the reason the AC is still typed as dodge would then be that you lose dodge bonusses when losing dex, so it still makes sens to type it.)



We've had regular weekly gaming at Le Valet and the Gamer's Vault but running into the issue that there is an influx of new players... with no available GM ('cause they're playing...).

So.. if you're interested in GMing 1-5 scenarios - at least occasionally -, shoot out!

Right now the games take place on sundays, but we're planning on setting up a saturday game as they're has been some demand.

Games are in english or french.


Erich L wrote:
First, can you attack with Armor Spikes when you're not grappling?

My belief is that it is the intent of this item, but that was lost in its poorly-worded decsription and subsequent abuse.

In fact I don't undestand how we so easily assume that it makes perfect sense to have a 1d6 "no hands" weapon that can be used as easily as a short sword. (and yes I am guilty of it, though I originally outfitted the spikes because my mini had them...)
The situation where an archer or reach wpn user would stab with its shoulder blade doing a whole 1d6 dmg with no penaltu whatsoever is quite ridiculous.

Because grapple actually allows CMB and regular wpn attacks it makes sense that the spikes were intended to be used in this context only (in which case btw they're more useful using the CMB because they *add* 1d6 to the regular unarmed dmg)

Also, the comparison with spiked gauntlets is quite telling. Gauntlets do less damage AND cannot be used as a CMB grapple attack AND use hands.

TwoWolves wrote:

Intimidate to Demoralize has been eratta'd to no longer stack with any other fear effect to increase a fear level.

Where is this ruling? The general FAQ says nothing. THe errata merely says that Demoralize cannot be re-used on the same target to increase the condition, but it says nothing of using it after or before another source?

Illeist wrote:
That is entirely the case. An Outsider Alchemist can drink extracts of People spells

Is that serious? Can an aasimar alchemist affect himself with his own extract? I see no reason by reading the description.


Well guys thanks a bunch for the advice. My feeling is not on giving up but feeling constrained by the PFS system and thinking about less PFS and more straight PF (which we're already doing as well) - though I see how PFS strcutred play has helped building up a lively game scene as well.

The reason why it's not obvious from the reports that "the collective" has played lots of scenarios is that we have a couple old-timers in the mix who all together have played lots of older scenarios, so we have to shoot for the season 3-4 and we're running out.

I retain your great suggestions and encouragment.

I am indeed currently setting up a registration system. We'll see how it fares. I wonder if there has been plans from Paizo to integrate such a feature on the website? That would be a tremendous addition, esp as it could integrate the list of scenarios everyone has played and their PCs levels...

We will likely try to alternate high level / low level every other week, that may help a lot. But I still like to play modules as they're more involving and require less prep hours per game hour.

Lastly, I'll indeed try to encouraging more players to DM because right now it's the #1 issue, rather than any PFS-system issue.


I managed to bring regular weekly PFS gaming to two FLGS, with 2-3 tables in each, but it seems the PFS managment rules are made to hamper these effort to develop the game and I'm finding it just too hard now after less than a year.

Let me explain (what you already know): starting is easy (and works well); it's getting it to last that's too hard. As soon as you get a few players through mid-level, you either have to turn down newcomers (no beginner table available) or convince your old-timers to start it all over again. Both suck.

Sure, if you've got a vast pool of DMs, players, and room for several tables, you're all right, but who has?

Oh, and we're already through *all* non-series tier 1-5 scenarios. There's always somebody who's played each.


1) Allow players to create characters above level 1, maybe up to level 3. It wouldn't be unbalanced/unfair, considering that without PP they could only buy always available items. Also, playing through 1 to 3 would still give you the edge of having accumulated PPs and boons. (This would also make chronicle items much more relevant for the newcomers and encourage having more cool boons)

2) Let PCs that are under the Tier level up quicker (and get less gold of course!). Otherwise stragglers, the unlucky player who misses a couple sessions because he's swamped with work, well, sorry, man, can't play with us anymore. Go play on the (inexistent) level 1 table.

This way you would have to "restart" much less frequently and welcome more players. Right now I have to turn down people coming in to play! Sorry guys! You can't play in our games, you're not good enough!

Without the PFS rules, I would certainly welcome them around the table with higher-level PCs. I mean, why the hell not!?

End of rant. I don't really hope this will change, but I sure know *I* will have to change it, that is stop abiding by PFS table rules pretty soon.

Except... the very official Righteous vigor spell that clearly assumes you can stack its own temp hp without ever presenting this as a special case.
Hearsay from James is good, a FAQ would be better. I'm running into this issue with a monster with at-will vampiric touch. This can get very nasty.

A couple issues. GM only.


It should be stressed that - as indicated - "Lex Avai" must indeed manage to procure an actual weapon from her marks to do her death attack. The succubus can't death attack with her natural attacks. Makes you wonder why she hasn't a stupid dagger.

Also a succubus best dependable attack is her 6d6 vampiric touch. Avalexi's flashy flame blade is cool but actually weaker. With her crazy high Cha, she can cast defensively every time...

Actually I think they make sense - once they're clarified -. I don't think anybody seriously mean that invisibility smothers sound. So I'm just suggesting that the +20 be removed. As you point out, it rarely comes into play anyways!

Abciximab wrote:

I think the "Full Round Action" applies to Oil (as opposed to Alchemist Fire). That's one of the advantages to Alchemists fire, no prep.

Thanks for clearing this out.

This should be clarified in the Combat Action chart, as this confusing FRA "Prepare splash weapons" entry has been lingering there for ages...

I like PDF. Because they're not paper.
I hate PDF. Because they're "Printable Documents", meant to be paper.

There's an inherent flaw in this concept when it applies to products people might want to use only on a screen.

Because not all of us have (portrait) tablets, why oh why can't we get Landscape-formatted, medium font, PDFs?
As is, PDFs are not well suited for onscreen use on laptops at all.

And for those who like print-outs, and if Paizo won't produce "choose your format" products (as some third parties do), well, what about landscape print outs? Uses less lateral table real estate! Gorgeous landscape illustrations! Stun the competition! Amaze your neighbours!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know those threads...

But nothing has changed. RAW still makes it so that an invisible rogue behind a wall gets +20 Stealth to... move silently. That's the "ghost steps bug".

Also, rules lack consolidation between the invisibility SA and Perception rules. There are modifiers that differ, which is annoying.

This whole affair is very obviously caused by the merging of Listen/Spot. 3.5 Invisibility was very clear. PF made it muddy because handling multi-modality Perception seems hard. It need not be so, because we've got the conceal/cover mechanics...

Suggested easy fix/clarification
Scrap the +20 stealth, and the 3.5-throwback invisibility move bonusses.
In fact, scrap all numeric perception rules that appear in the Invisibility SA entry. Then clarify the Perception rules thusly:

A) "Plain Sight". Creature has no conceal/cover.
Usually, just assume you're seen.
Straight DC to notice is 0/-5/-10/-20 for an immobile/½spd/full/running creature. This might matter if distraction + long-range piles up.

B) "Hiding". Creature has partial conceal/cover.
Use Stealth (-5 for full speed). {"sight"+"sound"}
A running creature would be a straight DC-20, in case it ever matters...

C) "Hidden/Invisible". Creature has total conceal/cover (behind a wall, or invisible).
Use Stealth (-5 for full speed). {"sound" only}
+20 bonus if immobile.
A running creature would be a straight DC0.
Also, if you beat an invisible check by 20, you confirm its presence visually.

Lengthy balance, rationale and comments in the spoiler below..


No +20 from invisibility seems unfair? It's crucial to remember that an invisible creature has a huge advantage on being able to always hide in plain sight. Also, if your opponent beats your Stealth by less than 20, he's still only "aware of something". But if you're not invisible, he knows you're somewhere behind cover, which is close to a pinpoint. If you're invisible, you could be anywhere! So, it's almost like having +20 already.

As in 3.5, an invisible creature *can* be visually noticed. This is the "Predator Cloaking Clause". But it's hard. In 3.5, it was a straight DC20/30/40. To makes things more homogenous, and in line with the suggested PF ruling, this could be replaced with Stealth+20, +20 for being immobile, and modified for speed. (again, think about a running vs. sneaking vs. immobile Predator).
However, as in 3.5, and as clearly specified in the spell desc, invisibility does not affect sound.
Therefore, in most cases, sneaks will be noticed by sound rather than sight. That's why the DC to notice an invisible creature has no +20 bonus! If you beat the DC by 20, then you've a) pinpointed the creature by sound *and* b) visually noticed something weird.
The -5/-10/-20 speed mods come from a mix of the new PF invis SA and Perception entries.

Corner cases
* Invisible creature, no cover, with deaf onlooker / sneak behind glass wall / "deaf" remote magical sensor.
--> You can see but not hear. In that case, just slap the normal "deaf" Perception malus, and grant the sneak the normal +20 "Predator" bonus.

The "visual cues" argument
There's a counter-argument that says you can use visual cues to analyse sounds, hence the +20 bonus to not hear you when invisible. I just can't figure this argument.
An invisible creature still produces visual cues, such as dust and moved objects. The only difference is shadows, which he doesn't cast. But the rules basically don't cover lighting and shadows (it would be highly complex) anyways.
Also, plus twenty for visual cues!! Mmm.... I really don't think that's RAI!

Re: Goblin tactics. Makes much sense put that way. If I run it again, I will keep this in mind and play on it. However, maybe I missed something, but I did not see a comment to this effect.



I'm curious, where the 'empty' rooms not empty in a previous revision?
My players were so intent on 'finding something' in the training room that I had them crawl through the obstacle course (Escape Artiste and hp loss Ahoy!) up to a "secret pipe" leading to the alchemy lab...

Also, I had Versevosh start disguised as a halfling. The silver crusade PC spent two rounds detecting evil to avoid mishaps.

Things to watch for when GMing:


* tactics for the collector room seemed poor: the bard is better firing off his good fear spells asap, and leaving the hound fighting by himself. There's no point in having a mount. Grease is nice though. Also the goblins with reach weapons cannot reach the PCs... and cannot hit them anyways. They're much better using fire and bows.
* boss fight: have the goblins start hidden. Get them out only to flank, that's their best use. Also, don't use Inoklar's frighten effect on every PC, keep a couple merely shaken, that'll split the party and allow strong attacks from Inoklar
* empty rooms (and dog room) should be skipped. Players lose time searching through them, as they always expect rooms to have stuff.


Stormfriend wrote:
I'd actually prefer to see PFS mods written entirely as bullet points rather than prose, as it would make finding things easier and speed up prep time.

100% agree. And I don't see how it would hinder beginner GMs - quite the contrary as the most important info would be highlighted.

I myself have to include in my prep routine to make such a bullet-point summmary of the whole scenario.

Also, I don't understand why the NPCs stat blocks are not simplified, and include more of the spell/SA/SD effects. Way too much clutter, not to mention stuff and spell that's not going to be used. That's one area where 4E fares way better. Having to go through the details of each NPC, taking notes on the secondary attack effects, special defenses, etc. is just nonsense.


Corrected the file above. Thanks Steg for checking this out.

I did simpify by not mentionning move actions, as you're either required to use one, or you typically lose it (unless there's no obstacle).

Btw the PRD's last paragraph is slightly odd. It says that you can't move when making a FRA, but you cannot move either when making a SA - unless the square has no obstacle.


Thanks for this correction. I am working on a fix. I must say the rules are a bit weird in that for clarity sake the tokens ought to be placed not on the square but on the borders.

The bestiary 2 entry for Ooze creature type does not list its immunity to critical hits and precision damage, unlike the bestiary 1.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a PDF file to help the GM manage the chase scene and the NPC attitude!

Goblin Guild GM aids


Here's a couple game aids: attitude tracker for Ekkie, and chase scene action cheat sheet for the players.

Fold the sheet in half, propping it up so that everybody can see the chase side during the chase, then fold it flat for yourself to track Ekkie later!

4-01 Goblin guild GM aid


Paz, thanks for the detailed reply. Makes sense. And I don't think that having (apparent) 8+ tables is a problem anyways.


So if I sum up..

* Only report one session regardless of the number of actual sessions.
* Put everybody who played in the module at any point in this session, with the correct amount of PP

* People who play e.g. session #1 only will be shown as having played at the date to which you post the final session, meaning they might appear as playing twice in the same day
* You might end up with an apparent table of more than 7
* I don't understand why the table credit is 2 and not 3, but hey, I don't understand why the PP is 4 and no more, or not subject to faction mission (esp. now that we have broader faction goals)

* The GM will not get proper PP credit, because it's locked at 2 and does not switch to 4 for a module.

Are there any plans to plan to fix this, esp. the last bug? And any plans to, like, explain this on the reporting page...


I'm just lost and I don't see how we can make it work. Am I really the only one to face this issue that modules cannot be reported properly?

1) I have to report each session of the module as a separate session, because, well, I ran three sessions, not one. Some people are there at all sessions, some not.

2) But it doesn't work properly that way. I have to report the prestige for the whole scenario on the *first* session, because further sessions' PP are ignored as if the player "already played the scenario". So players just appear like they're cheating or something.

3) GM's PP doesn't work either. I get automatically 2PPs for the first session and nothing for the next two.

4) Even if I used a single session the GM would style get only 2PP, and not get proper table credit.

Jiggy wrote:
Enforcing the limitations that are built into the Aid Another mechanic will eliminate abuse of said mechanic.

If the mechanic is that the GM must make a judgment call to allow or disallow, then it's not a mechanic.

Thanks for all the inputs. If I summarize, the #1 problem mentioned here is:

P4) Aid Another is too often used by Aid-monkeys who just scream "Aid! Aid!" with no actual involvment in the action. This is legit but unfun.

In concur. But that was not the issues I was putting forward.
Except for Kyle Baird, nobody here seems to mind at all for the fact that an ugly stupid fighter can help the brillant half-elf bard:

a) without ever risking to hamper her effort
b) even if she's doing an expert speech already
c) and can even push her above and beyond what she can normally do

There's a consensus on P4. But why does aid-monkeys exist? Because Aid Another is risk-free... so you can shout "Aid!" without thinking twice.
If using fixes F3 or F4, most aid-monkeys would vanish in a puff of smoke without requiring the GM to "manually" control them.

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>