* 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).
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
Here's the situation (assuming I always beat my enemies' perception)
**SNIPING**
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.
**NOT SNIPING**
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!
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.
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.
**Suggestions?**
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.
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!
You know those threads...
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4b86?Blindness-vs-Invisibility
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2pvq?Consolidated-Stealth-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..
Spoiler:
Balance
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.
Rationale
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!
(This is about Aid Another when used for a skill, not an attack)
(Also, I'm posting here because it's more of an issue in PFS, where you get larger groups and you can't house-rule)
*** PROBLEMS WITH AID ANOTHER ***
P1) Anybody can help an inspired expert and push him further. Good points have been made elsewhere about the notion that a journeyman can help an expert at times. Sure, when he underperforms. But what if the expert excels?
P2) It's risk-free. Shouldn't totally clumsy PCs hamper the expert?
P3) It destroys the balance of hard DCs in those specific skills where you can use it (e.g. diplomacy) relative to the others (e.g. knowledge).
Example 1: the half-elf bard does a brillant speech, rolling 30... and not only can the rude dwarf barbarian actually improve that result, also there's no way he can make any misplaced comment or rude noise.
Example 2: nobody's good at Intimidation in the party, but don't fret: even the skinny wizard and the bland cleric can help push the bard into Difficult DC territory, risk-free.
Result= seasoned players always ask for Aid and the "everybody roll for Aid!" drill becomes dull and involves no planning nor reflection whatsoever. Also, tasks where Aid is possible become a joke.
Simple maths shows you that Aid adds on average at least 5 to the check result for a 5-PC party, which is a very large bonus. The average level 2 party can succeed on "difficult" DC20 at least 80% of the time. Worse is the fact that it is independent of the DC. So that the obtuse fighter can actually help see through elaborate lies, for example.
*** SUGGESTIONS ***
Here are fix ideas. The problem is the RAW leaves little wriggle room
Fixes that don't involve rule change:
F1) Put drastic limitations on the number of aiders. Flaw: doesn't address P1 nor P2.
F2) Forbid Aid and use Group Checks (take the best result) instead. Prevents P1 and is easy to apply. Flaw: doesn't fully prevents P3. Doesn't address P2.
Fixes that involve rules change:
F3) D&D4 style. Failing the Aid gives -2 to the expert. Advantage: minor change, simple to use, self-regulating. Flaw: requires some GM oversight. Doesn't really address P1.
F4) Group Checks with Hamper. Make a group check for all active participants, but substract 2 to the best result for each result under 10 (min=worst result). Good for e.g. Diplomacy checks. For e.g. stealth checks, use Weakest Link with Help: take the worst result, but add 2 for results above 10 (max= best result). Self-regulating, still allows constant usefulness from decently-skilled PCs, but does not imbalance the challenges, while allowing risk-taking ("I'll try and help anyways!"). Flaw: longer to explain and resolve
What do you think? What's your experience with aid?
I run a weekly game at my FLGS. Should I
A) create a single event (e.g. "Weekly PFS at the Drunken Dragon") and one session per table per week, or
B) one Event per week (e.g. "August 12 PFS at the Drunken Dragon") with one session per table?
Also, what happens with modules?
C) One session for the whole module (in which case what date??)
D) One session per module (but see caveat below)
(Advanced question: I actually run these at 2 different stores, alternating each week... So if I run a module spanning 2 locations, what do I do? I have to indicate the location on the event. This would mean I should create 2-3 events just for the module, with one session per event? That's three events for a single module. And then, I can only write one event # per CS, so should I give 2-3 CS for the module? Or write multiple event # on the one CS?)
I think the event registration page should explain this clearly at the top.
