Fozzy Hammer's page

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

Tool, Masterwork

Very debatable... (and in Organized Play it's best to stay away from debates.).

But you can always buy a 200 gp ioun stone for a +1!

I've yet to have a single GM challenge my use of masterwork tools, once the relevant text is pointed out to him/her.

And yes, I'll generally buy an Ioun stone too, for skills that I care about most. (Different bonus types, so they do stack.)

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text.

Actually, I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. What seems to be advocated, is there's a whole bunch of rules/guidelines that may not work, but are "fairly obvious how they should work". Paizo employees have said in this thread and others, that you should go with the "fairly obvious way it should work". This means you have huge leeway in how you want pretty much every mechanic to work, so long as you can make an argument that the way you want a mechanic to work is "fairly obvious", since we've been told a number of times to not be slaves to the RAW when it is clear what was intended.

The fact that what is clear to one group may not necessarily what will be clear to another group does not appear to be an issue.

Ya. That would work fine in a home campaign, where a good GM can do wonders to make up for poor design and crappy writing and failed attempts at editing.

But in an organized play setting, players have a right to expect that rules will be applied uniformly from table to table, and GM to GM. So what might be obvious to one GM is by no means obvious to another. For example, while Chris Mortika and I are in apparent agreement in this thread, we are very nearly polar opposite in how we view evil or borderline evil or non-good acts by PC's. We had a whole thread end without a single bit of Paizo input other than to close the thread down when the argument gained some heat. So no, it's not at all fairly obvious how that was supposed to go. In fact, given the dearth of Paizo input on this thread, it's not at all obvious how this is supposed to be ruled.

What may be obvious to you, may not be obvious to all, or even anyone else. Saying "It's obvious" is simply a shortcut way of saying "I can't be bothered to make myself clear. Everyone guess what I'm thinking!!!" (There's a Dilbert cartoon in there somewhere, with the Pointed Haired Menace shouting "It's Obvious!!!")

So what your asking Fozzy is to recreate the RPG book. Come on now guys you'r just being condescending now.

No. That is not what I am asking as well. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here that you are not being deliberately obtuse.

The CORE RULES are quite clear on how spells behave.

The PFS house rules (ie, the Guide4.0) modify how every permanent and instantaneous spell works. Every one of them.

Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario

that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. This
includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.

This rule. In GUIDE4.0 modifies Animate Dead (Instantaneous Duration). It modifies Continual Flame (Permanent). It also modifies Cure Light Wounds (Instantaneous Duration).

This means, that according to the campaign rules (not the core rules), cure light wounds ends at the end of a module.

Yes, I know that it is not getting applied that way. But this is because GM's are ignoring this rule when it comes to CLW, but they are not ignoring this rule when it comes to Animate Dead.

It is only through ignorance of this campaign house rule that huge numbers of characters don't suddenly drop dead at the end of each module.

The campaign house rule is poorly written.

Maybe I should start enforcing the rule, as written in games that I run. Maybe a few complaints to a VC about dead characters at the end of the module might convince you that the rule needs rewriting?

But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text.

I'm going to have to refer you to the rules forums for this if you don't understand how healing works Chris.

And you are also putting words in my mouth. I said that None of the NPCs cast prohibited spells in scenarios. Cure spells aren"t prohibited.

And I also know that you understand that. I can understand that prople want Masterwork Transformation made legal. I can respect that.

And I know that I'm going to get blaster for this, but come on Chris, you know Pathfinder rules better than this. It's not like Cure spells have had a lot of changes since 3.0.

Sorry that might sound condescending, but there has to be a better way of making a persuasive argument than misinterpreting the main rule set.

I don't believe that Chris is misrepresenting the main rule set. He is making an accurate representation of the HOUSE RULES that Pathfinder Society uses. The House Rules are inconsistent, and inconsistently applied.

It would be my hope that by pointing out these inconsistencies, future revisions of the rules might be better written, and the game itself would improve.

Personally, I don't care whether MT is made legal or not. The fact that it isn't makes any argument about it moot. The tangential argument, that the house rule proclaiming that instant effect are reversed at end-of-scenario is far more important to me, as it's a gaping hole in the rule set that should be corrected in future revisions of the rules.

I'm sorry, Michael; I don't understand.

The PFS OP rules explain that --as a special frule of organized play --the duration of spells cast by Player Characters always end between scenarios.

Quote:

Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. ... This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.

1) Already, there's a problem, because when we talk about instantaeneous spells like fireball and animate dead, the spell has already ended. So there's a gentlemen's understanding that this includes spell effects, not just spells. So not only is it the case that permanent spells like continual flames peter out, but the effects of instantaneous spells also end. That's not how the guide reads, but that's the interpretation we use.

2a) But not all spells with instantaneous durations. Cure serous wounds has an immediate duration, but we don't imagine that characters sudenly re-take damage. Make whole has an immediate duration, but we don't presume that your restored weapon is broken at the beginning of the next adventure. Raise dead. Etc.

2b) A few people have claimed that the actual, intended meaning here is that the effects of spells that PCs cast, that have a permanent or instantaneous duration, end, unless they remove a condition. So remove disease removes a condition, so it's permanent, but the effects of contagion would go away at the end of the scenario, because it doesn't remove a condition. Make whole removes the "broken" condition, so it's permanent, but masterwork transformation doesn't remove a condition, so its effects would fade away at the completion of a scenario.

2c) But cure spells don't remove a condition, so we need another exception: ...or unless they heal damage. Spels like stone to flesh don't remove a...

Leaving your quote intact (not trimming)...

There's another case here that hasn't been mentioned in the thread yet.

4) Non-spell effects also seem to end at end of scenario. Specific example, the feat: Command Undead. I've yet to see a DM that will allow the commanded undead to remain under the necromancers control past the end of the scenario, even though there is no spell, or spell-like ability in effect. (Channel Energy is a (Su) Supernatural ability).

I will add a slight correction before someone else points out - that Stone to Flesh could be said to remove the Petrified condition.

Callarek wrote:

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

Stone to flesh changes a condition permanently, once that happens it doesn't revert back at the end of a scenario.

So, according to the normal PF rules, does Masterwork Transformation.

It has a duration of instantaneous. It changes something into something else, just like Stone to Flesh does.

So, masterwork and non-masterwork are not conditions. Is dead a condition?

Yes Dead is a condition.

Dead wrote:

The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

A complete list of conditions you can find it at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#conditions

"Wounded" is not a condition.

If you're willing to invest the 3300 GP, yes, this works out better. My general argument was against stating that characters above 12 CHA SHOULD take Dangerously Curious & devote ranks to UMD. Now, a high (primary attribute) Charisma, items/feats...the math absolutely works out better.

I do agree that it's awfully helpful out of combat with wands, but I stand by my statement that implying it's a necessity isn't really appropriate stands. The same incident described above involving reviving a witch can be achieved by keeping 1-3 Cure Light Wounds potions on hand.

Even if you don't want to invest 3300gp, and you don't want to invest in the trait, just taking 1 single rank in UMD can pay off for those rare scenarios where you have no caster in the party, as long as you have a non-negative charisma modifier.)

"Cleric's down! I could use some healing here!"
"Well, I have a wand of Infernal Healing. Any casters in our party?"
|crickets|
|crickets|
"Well, I have a single rank in UMD. I'll give it a try."
|roll|
|roll|
|roll|
"Hey! look. It activated. Looks like the cleric will be conscious in a minute or so."

Jason S wrote:

What's the name of the masterwork item that gives you +2 to UMD? And which book is it in?

From the Core Rulebook:

Tool, Masterwork: This well-made item is the perfect
tool for the job. It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on a
related skill check (if any). Bonuses provided by multiple
masterwork items do not stack.

Whether or not one can buy a MW Tool for any skill is worth some debate, but many players feel that the 50 gp for +2 is applicable to all skills not otherwise detailed.

Yep, what you said.

I usually describe it as bits of ornate finery that make my clothes look like I haven't been standing in manure all day.

Or "a simple, yet elegant scepter that gives the impression of minor nobility, or at least mid-high birth, without actually carrying any identifying marks."

Or sometimes just a "decorative brooch showing an aspect of Shelyn", as she is the one god welcomed by all of the other gods.

bdk86 wrote:

I'm sorry, but...why? While it is very useful to be able to access scrolls/wands/other spell-activation items outside of your class' spell list (or even better, if you don't get spell casting at all) the skills DCs make it rather unreliable until later levels unless Charisma is one of your primary attributes.

As another poster mentioned, it is for wands for out of combat healing. At level 1, with Charisma 12, 1 rank in UMD and the Dangerously Curious trait, you have a 6 in 20 chance of activating a wand. You have a 1 in 20 chance of not being able to activate that wand until the next day.

Being able to heal up between combats is a lifesaver, when you may not have a cleric/oracle or other healer type at your table.

Actually works out slightly better.

Cha 12, Dangerously Curious trait, 1 Rank in UMD, 50gp MW Tool for UMD

+1 Charisma
+1 Rank
+3 Class Skill
+2 Tool
=====
+7 to UMD

Even if you never take another rank, a 13 on the die (40% chance) activates the wand. Cost - 1 trait, 1 rank, 50gp

For a slightly higher investment:

3000gp Circlet of Persuasion (+3 to all charisma based checks, which in itself is durn useful in PFS)

1 Rank per level

At 6th level:

+1 Charisma
+6 Ranks
+3 Class Skill
+2 Tool
+3 Circlet
=====
+15 to UMD

A 5 on the die (80% chance) activates the wands, and you can't fail by 10 or more so no chance for a mishap. (A 1 still hoses you for the day, so carry a second wand of CLW or Infernal Healing).

[I understand that bards and "charisma rogues" need something to do other than cower in the corner during "boss fights", and that Ultimate Combat was going to throw them some bones, but limitationless "You! -2 attack, Nyah-nyah!" is a hefty power upgrade off of a single feat.

Speaking as a player of bards, I will take umbrage at that remark!

I have not, and will not use Antagonize, as I think it's a really poorly written and unbalanced feat.

I will state that every boss fight I've found myself in, I've found ways to actually turn the tide of the battle.

"Everyone gets +2 to hit and damage!"
"I intimidate the boss - Oh, look, he's shaken for 2 rounds."
"I vanish, and then waltz up and heal the fighter"
"I glitterdust the boss!"
"I charm monster the boss! Make a DC22 Will save!"
"I grease the square under the bosses feet!"
"Boss, is unshaken? Intimidate to demoralize again!!! How many rounds does a 35 get me?"
"I silence the spellcaster!, and switch my bardic performance to Interpretive Dance!"

After our first session, we are nearing the cusp of maximum table size. We haven't started promoting it at the FLGS beyond our weekly D&D Encounters group. If we do, I think we will have too many players. No one else will run Pathfinder in our group. I'm afraid that the Society adventures (and the rules behind Organized Play) are a little intimidating to new GMs (particularly a guy who just shows up to play.) Then there are the supplies, printing adventures, etc.

Can you think of a way around this?

In the past, we've come up with a policy that encourages GMing. It goes something like this:

If the table has too many players, seating preference will be given in the following order:

1) If you have GM'd a PFS game here in the last 2 months, you get seated first. This encourages you to GM a game, because it will buy you a seat at a full table.

2) If you are a new player, you get seated next. This encourages new players to help the Society grow.

3) If you've sat out a game to make room for other players in the last month, you get seated next. This acknowledges that you've sat out in the past, and that others need to take their turns sitting out.

4) Any remaining seats will be filled in the order you signed up for this game. This encourages you to sign up for games early, so that we can plan on having enough GM's on hand.

It's uncommon, but I've dealt with it. Actually, the most common form of PVP I've seen is deliberately trying to hose another player's Faction Mission.

I've seen a little bit of this. I've also seen the player accidentally hose another's faction mission, and the unfortunate player either believes it was intentional, or believes that this gives them leave to respond in kind.

Which is why I'm more a fan of "Hey guys, my faction leader wants me to try to find a book of magic curses. He also said that I shouldn't let you see me find the book. At some point, if I ask you all to turn your heads, I'd appreciate it. If you need anything similar accomplished, just let me know. I'm a good negotiator, and I speak a host of languages. Remember, we're Pathfinders first. Remember - Explore!Report!Cooperate."

Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s

claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering
a helping hand.

And it is as Neil said, "frowned upon" to have multiple Paizo accounts. There are a number of reasons, but the one most applicable to the forums is the "sock puppet" concept that is bad form and grounds for removal.

Yet another unwritten rule? I've been unable to find any mention of such.

No, I'm not a sockpuppet. Either what I write resonates, or it does not. I try very hard to support my opinions with actual rules text, and where rules text does not exist, to point out that my opinion is merely my opinion.

All that said, I will reiterate that rules that are not written are not rules. They might be considered etiquette or custom, if a consensus agrees that they are such, but not rules.

Snarky Hammer wrote:

If I were snarky, I might point out that Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who thinks they can make up rules about whether or not faction missions make a PC unplayable.

Fozzy, I don't know what "If I were snarky, I might" does as a rhetorical device. I have repeatedly explained that I follow the guide to the best of my understanding, and I take offense at your claim that I am making up rules.

I request an apology.

There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to remove a character from PFS organized play, yet you assert that there is.

There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to change a character's alignment, against the wishes of the player, you you state that you have done such.

There is no portion of the guide that asserts that the completion of any faction mission is an "evil act", or that "evil acts" are in any way, shape or form prohibited in organized play. You you assert that such are.

Yes you are making up rules.

No. For these reasons, your request for an apology is denied.

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

(Though I've never seen an actual logical explanation of why Cure Light Wounds, Remove Disease, Raise Dead, and Restoration don't also end at end of scenario.)

Because those spells are not permanent effects. They are instantaneous effects. Yes the healing is permanent, but the actual spell effect is not. It instantaneously causes the healing to occur.

Just like the damage from a fireball is permanent because the spell is instantaneous.

Lets not get pedantic with are arguing over rules minutia and why certain rules and/or spells are not allowed in OP.

You're not reading the rules. The rule specifically includes instantaneous effects (such as healing and fireball).

The following spells, found in the Pathfinder RPG Core

Rulebook, are not legal for play and may never be used, found,
purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder
Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, reincarnate.
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario.This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.

It's not pedantic to want the rules to mean what the rules say, instead of what some people think that they might be trying to say. Either the rules matter, or we can all just simply play whatever game pleases us at the time, and I can start writing awesome boons into character sheets.

"You are appointed head of the Church of Aroden. You may now use the title Pope, and gain a +10 circumstance bonus to diplomacy and sense motive roles when dealing with any church official, regardless of deity."

"You are granted permanent rights to sleep with Venture Captain Eliza Petulingo, When doing so, she is required to scream your name at least seven times, followed by either "oh yes", or "oh gods". This boon grants you a +2 circumstance bonus when dealing with other female venture captains."

Another thread asked about non core book spells that were legal to make permanent for PFS. The answer is no spells can be made permanent for PFS.

Assuming a house game what spells would you like to be able to be made permanent that are not listed on the permanency spell list? SPells from Paizo products specifically.

For those who need a refresher;
** spoiler omitted **...

This really needs to be in the Rules section. Making (Not PFS) part of the actual subject makes it obvious you are posting in the wrong place!!!

The whole "instantaneous spells end at the conclusion of a scenario" is vague. Animate dead goes away, but raise dead doesn't. Rusting grasp goes away, but mending doesn't.

What finally made the idea click for me is realizing that fireball goes away. Well, sure. If you take damage from a fireball, you heal up gradually and are at full health at the beginning of the next scenario. So, spells fade between scenarios, rather than blinking out. Blindness is normally a permanent spell, but it fades in PFS -- maybe there's an ablative spell-disruption field overlaying the Absalom lodge? Cure Serious Wounds ends, but gradually, allowing natural healing to take over as it fades away. Likewise, the magic of a make whole spell evaporates, but the PC is probably physically repairing the item during down time, making up for the dwindling dwoemer.

Nope, still doesn't work. If that were true, then a character killed by a fireball wouldn't ever need to pay for raise dead. He'd simply wait for the scenario to end and be just fine and dandy.

The rule makes no actual sense in application. Either all spells stop, or none of them do.

Suzaku wrote:

If it becomes legal can we then discuss it? ;p
(I really wish it was legal).

As long as it would be tracked and properly paid for there really isn't a reason to have it banned.

It's more of a 'it's always been this way in organized campaigns' kind of thing. It's part of the core rules and really shouldn't be excluded.

I know in LG you had sorcerers electing to take see invis as a known spell when they might not have, and then just spammed casting it every 2-4hours.

-James

I suspect that like all house rules, permanency comes down to the campaign GM's individual prejudices against parts of the rules.

If you look at the things that are banned within the campaign, by and large they affect casters more than they affect non-casters. Whole swath's of UM are completely banned from PFS, magic item creation is largely banned, even permanent and instantaneous spells end at end of scenario. (Though I've never seen an actual logical explanation of why Cure Light Wounds, Remove Disease, Raise Dead, and Restoration don't also end at end of scenario.)

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

But it's not really in the form of a rule.

Right, it does not appear that the Guide expressly forbids you from having more than 1 unique tracking number per player in PFS. *sigh*

Ya. It appears to fall into that realm of "things that everyone thinks are rules, but aren't".

"Evil acts are forbidden" (No such rule)
"You can't have more than one PFS number" (No such rule)
"You can't have more than one messageboard account" (No such rule)
"You can't craft in PFS" (Crafting Skill is never called out as disallowed).
"Item creation is not allowed" (Arcane Bond)

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?

Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which isn't what you said you were doing.

Well, there is:

Warning: If you already have a registration card do not click this button.

But it's not really in the form of a rule.

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?

Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which isn't what you said you were doing.

I can't think that there would be much point of trying to have two different PFS numbers. (Though I can't even find a reference for that, but it's moot to me).

Given that most people generally play with a specific play group, the GM's will generally have your PFS number on file (or on a list, or in a spreadsheet), and playing under separate numbers will just come up as cheesy.

The only reason I could see someone trying is if they wanted to try to get credit for the same scenario multiple times, but the local players would already know that you had played in the scenario.

You might be able to go to a convention and re-play a scenario, but then how would you bring that character back to your home play group?

Even if you were to claim (or in fact did) lose track of your number, then you have still got your friends and fellow players knowing which scenarios you've played, and which you haven't.

Lies are too difficult to keep track of. Too much work for me.

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

Given we've already seen one GM say that he likes to look through past chronicles looking for completed faction missions that he can ascribe as "evil acts", I'd hate for some GM that I've never sat down with to decide that a character that I play that has never appeared at his table is evil, based on past success or failure of certain faction missions.

Can you link to that post?

I recall GMs saying they would flag evil actions on Chronicles (including during Faction Missions), and GMs who would audit Chronicles and deal with characters based on repeated flags. I must have missed someone saying they would retroactively determine a past Prestige gained from another GM must have been an evil act.

As a GM, I've considered those to be traps: if your PC tries to complete them, I'll note as much on your character sheet. If I already see such a note (or see that you received prestige award in such a scenario), I'll write a note moving your character's alignment one step closer to Evil. If you were already Neutral, your character becomes unplayable.

And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?

Personally I wouldn't need to know what's your real name, where you live etc. but more about what your character has done.

Let's take an example, like online games. Since there's no real way of checking what games everyone has played via the reporting tool here at Paizo's, it falls to the honor system. I don't mind that, but in particular cases it could be useful to see whether characters 47261-4, 61441-2, 44154-10 and 77163-3 have played scenario #4-05.

Unless that you believe someone is lying to you, simply asking them should be sufficient.

If you believe someone is lying to you, and that they have in fact played a module previously, then you have multiple options.

1) "I'm sorry, but I can't give you credit for this module. You can either play the character you were going to play, for zero credit, or you can play a pregen."

2) "I really think you are lying to me about whether or not you have played this module before. As you have apparently broken the "Don't Cheat" rule, I'm not comfortable having you at my table any further. Please leave."

Spells

The following spells, found in the Pathfinder RPG Core
Rulebook, are not legal for play and may never be used, found,
purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder
Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, reincarnate.
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. This
includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.

sieylianna wrote:

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

2 Competence Bonus on all Charisma based checks = 400 x #of checks. Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle...

Except the circlet of persuasion provides a +3 competence bonus to all Charisma related checks for 4,500 gold. So even though it's shifting a slot, I think 6,000 is too high.

Multiply x2 for not being tied to the head slot, and it'd be 9k.

There is no price increase for shifting from one body slot (head) to another body slot (armor).

3.5 had a 1.5x cost multiplier for "Uncustomary Space Limitation" and Pathfinder and 3.5 both have a 2x multiplier for "No Space Limitation", but "Armor" is listed as one of the 15 body slots:

Armor: suits of armor.

Belts: belts and girdles.
Body: robes and vestments.
Chest: mantles, shirts, and vests.
Eyes: eyes, glasses, and goggles.
Feet: boots, shoes, and slippers.
Hands: gauntlets and gloves.
Head: circlets, crowns, hats, helms, and masks.
Headband: headbands and phylacteries.
Neck: amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, and scarabs.
Ring (up to two): rings.
Shield: shields.
Shoulders: capes and cloaks.
Wrist: bracelets and bracers.

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

Fozzy, what does a PFS GM do when your discussion doesn't work?

And when you encounter the player at multiple locations?

As a DM, I go to the campaign coordinator and let them know I want to eject a player from my table.

Thing is... it's really a small world out there.. Within a region a player can build up enough bad blood to get to the point where he's effectively ostracized from gaming. I've seen it happen with one person to whom I'm of close acquaintance back in the Living Greyhawk/Living City days.

You really don't even need a VC's approval. If it were me, I would have phrased the bolded quote as:

As a DM, I go to the campaign coordinator and let them know that I have ejected a player from my table.

I've never had to eject a player, and I hope that I never do, but if that time comes, at my table, it is my option who plays and who does not.

Nevynxxx wrote:

The tech can be used for good or bad I suppose. But I'd be interested to know why you would be worried about others knowing what scenarios your characters have played?

Privacy is a slippery slope. Once you ask one thing, others get expected. And quite frankly, the concept of inalienable rights means that I don't need to justify my expectation of them to anyone. If needs came down to it, Paizo HAS that info, at least for every session that's actually been recorded. What need DO YOU have for my information that can't be addressed by less invasive methods including a registration site like Warhorn? If you don't trust me as a player, don't play with me. If you don't trust me as GM, boycott my table. It's really quite that simple.

Precisely the reason that I do not, and will never post under a name/id that can be connected to my play history. I've already seen one VC here post what he thought was my play history, in public, without my permission. I've seen multiple VC's post about other forum member's play histories as well. Despite Paizo's apparently posted privacy policy.

Given we've already seen one GM say that he likes to look through past chronicles looking for completed faction missions that he can ascribe as "evil acts", I'd hate for some GM that I've never sat down with to decide that a character that I play that has never appeared at his table is evil, based on past success or failure of certain faction missions.

Who I am, where I am, where I've played, and who I have played with are all my private data, not to be given out without my consent, thankyouverymuch.

heretic wrote:

The scent section does appear pretty clear in that it must auto work as it simply says creatuires "can" detect without defining it mechanically i.e. by linking it to any skill e.g. Pereption.

Interesting that you should mention Perception.

What senses does Perception cover? Everything but smell? No.

Now let's look at where they define vision. Hmm no mention of the Perception skill there either.

But when we go to tremorsense, blindsense and blindsight.. wow there's where it directly says they automake such perception checks.

heretic wrote:

Scent is a bit like being able to hear with your nose. No matter how good you are at hugging the shadows if you enter the room and start singing at the top of your lungs you will get detected.

Yep, anyone not trying to be hidden from a given sense are automatically detected within the range of that sense. This is true whether it's vision, hearing, or even smell.

heretic wrote:

We don't require Perception checks for PCs to talk to eachother even in the heat of battle neither should we allow a stealth roll to ignore the lound and tuneless singing eminating from the would be stealther!

You're leaping around here. Rather than just skim some of this thread, why don't you go back to read my posts on it?

To follow along with what you're saying.. we DO require Perception checks for PCs that are properly using stealth to remain unobserved by all senses. Not just sight and sound.

So if a PC wishes to try to sneak past a guard (or a guard dog) then they might have a chance if they can satisfy the requirements of the skill.

This is very different from claiming that the PC can openly walk past the guard without being seen, or the guard needing to see a PC walking in the open.

But that doesn't mean that the guard DOES need to make a Perception check when the PC is sneaking around using cover relative to the guard in order to maintain stealth.

When you have two possible ways to read a line...

James,

The only problem I have with this argument is that in order to make a stealth check, you need cover or concealment against all the senses you are trying to stealth against.

There are specific things a character _could_ do to cover or conceal their scent, but none of these involve sneaking past visual cover. They involve things like Negate Aroma, or "I douse myself in water so that until I start drying, the water will conceal my smell."

So you've essentially got a character in plain view of a creature's scent sense, but it seems you are saying that creature will not autodetect the character within the range of the scent ability.

Can you reconcile this with your argument?

My wife asked me about this as she was drawing up her new PC. Seems she was looking a dumping Dex and figured this would be cute. So, if a Player states her PC is visibly pregnant (that would be "with child") and role plays it to the max (I can see some fun times at the tables ahead) can she just stay that way? I mean, as far as I can tell, time away from the table is kind of abstract so ... how long can she be "in a family way".

I told her she could always have her PC take a few month off to have the kid, develope the condition again and go adventuring again. Kind of odd thou, having a PC who only adventures when she is 5+ months along.

Anyway - just wanted to hear other peoples thoughts on this.

I'm just thinking about the role-playing opportunity this opens up for the rest of the table.

Halfling - "Pregnant? I thought you were just getting fat."

Half-Orc /leering/ - "Ah, that's why I keep thinking I'm thirsty."

Dwarf - "What, you gonna whine all day 'bout yer condition. Me ma, she was adventuring all through her pregnancy. Never stopped reminding me how she crouched to duck a battleaxe swing, and I just dropped out."

Elf - "Hmm. What's your gestational period? You people do breed like rabbits don't you. How...distasteful. /takes a step away as though not wanting to "catch cooties"/"

Gnome - "Hmm. I have this alchemical infusion that I've been wanting to try on a pregnant subject. It has a 74% chance of making your child 3% smarter. And only a 14% chance of the child spontaneously mutating and bursting forth immediately. Here. Drink this!"

Thanks Fozzy. The "Have a bear!" is my dwarven clerics tag line (can you guess his diety?). I also do try not to "take advantage of the GMs" - I much prefer to play with the GM rather than against him. I try to avoid the ones who have to play against the players.

A dwarf saying "Have a bear!" lol! Yep, I bet they appeal to some.

Thinking about Legolas and Gimli and those late nights at Helms Deep...

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

I will add to Neil's statement that as adamant and strident as I might be on the board here, at the table I defer to the GM. If any rules discussion at the table runs for more than 30 seconds I'll try to jump forward with "I think the GM should make his call, whatever it is, and after the module we can look up to see what the rule actually is."

During time when I'm waiting for a turn, I'll find the relevant rules text and mark it, and after the session, I'll generally say something like, "Just for future reference, here's the rules text for X."

Really, the time to talk the rules is outside of game (here, while waiting for the session, after the session, whatever). During the game is where all the time you spent debating rules boils into make a call, keep playing, keep the fun going. Never argue the rules with the GM during the session. Time is too short, and generally it interrupts the story. I'd much rather stay in role and trust that I've trained the GM (at least that's how I think of it :)) well enough by now.

You're welcome at any table I run, anytime :)

Sir, I thank you.

this came up during a game recently.

my character got to act in the surprize round and won init and moved up on the BBG (as in right beside). No attack - just a move action.

the Judge said, "He draws his sword, so you get an AOO".

I said, "for what? Drawing a weapon doesn't cause an AOO".

Judge reply "sure it does, it has sense 3.0"

Me... "Ah... no. but ok. wait - I don't have a weapon out, all I have is a mug of beer (my holy symbol) - so I'll offer him a drink."

Should I have gone ahead and taken the AOO? My PC actually had out his ax when he moved up - I wanted an AOO if the BBG was spell casting (and my character is designed to "draw fire" anyway). But it felt like I would have been cheating - I know there is no AOO for drawing? Later I drew my ax to soak off his AOO so the party rogue could move past him and flank.

(and after the game I showed the judge the table in the Core book - at which he said "wow, I keep getting these PF changes from 3.0 popping up". I didn't argue this, 'cause it didn't matter. He's more likely to do it right in the future which is all that really matters).

So do you play by the rules when you know them? or use the rules you know the DM is wrong on during play and correct him later?

Table: Move Actions
Action Attack of Opportunity
Move Yes
Control a frightened mount Yes
Direct or redirect an active spell No
Draw a weapon2 No
Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow Yes
Open or close a door No
Mount a horse or dismount No
Move a heavy object Yes
Pick up an item Yes
Sheathe a weapon Yes
Stand up from prone Yes
Ready or loose a shield2 No
Retrieve a stored item Yes

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Your GM was more than a little out of date.

Personally, I try not to take advantage of a GM's lack of rules knowledge. It's a hard temptation though, and I can't claim that I always live up to my own ideal.

I like the "I offer him a drink!" idea. Sounded like a fine way to run up against that line.

Hi all, I spent yesterday evening making a new alchemist gnome character for my weekly Monday night PFS game. With my first character hitting 4th level and some n00bs still occasionally joining the group, I wanted a new 1st level character in case we run the 1-2 tier for a scenario. I'm very excited to see that alchemist can use craft(alchemy) now in PFS. The character will be sort of a jack of all trades, but his primary offensive option will involve splash weapons and bombs. So I was hoping to get some clarifications on the rules.

Since time is not a measurable commodity in PFS, it would seem to me that the alchemist could make as many alchemist's fires, acids, etc. as his little gnomish heart desires. Is this correct?

Also can I "take ten" on these rolls? I would assume so by the core rules which gives me a result of 20 so I should be able to make anything up to that difficulty without a roll.

If I try something more difficult and fail, what are the consequences? Normally a failure of 4 or less just results in no progress on the crafting for that week, however in PFS that has no bearing. Can I simply try again, or do I need to move on without that product until I complete another scenario. A failure of 5 or more costs some resources, but I would think I could just mark that off and try again.

Not sure there's been any sort of official ruling on this, unless my search-fu has failed me. I know this isn't clarified directly in the FAQs.

Any insight that people can provide would be much appreciated.

How can alchemists craft in Pathfinder Society Organized Play?

Alchemists can use the Craft (alchemy) skill to produce items with their Alchemy ability. Follow the Craft rules on pages 91–93 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook as well as in the alchemist’s Alchemy ability description. Any item created must be properly noted on that scenario’s Chronicle sheet. Under "Items Bought", note the amount of gold spent and the item created.

Alchemists are assumed, for Pathfinder Society Organized Play, to carry the necessary items and tools with them to use available resources to create alchemical items. If they have a base of operations from which to do so, they may use an alchemy lab to gain the +2 bonus on their Craft (alchemy) check.

Alchemists may never sell any of their created items nor may they trade them to another PC. However, they may allow other PCs to borrow or use items they’ve created (so long as the alchemist class ability being used allows them to do so).

—Mark Moreland, 08/15/11

There is currently no limit on how much out-of-game time an alchemist may spend crafting.

If you fail, you may try again. It's in the Core Rules. Use them as your "bible".

Have your GM note the items that you have crafted, especially any that you can't make with a "Take 10"

Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

Yes, you may take 10.

If you fail a check by 4 or less, you make no progress this week. If you fail by 5 or more, you ruin half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.

If you fail by less than 5, just try again. Do it in front of a GM.

deusvult wrote:

The forum is the right place to have this sort of discussion. However were this to be happening instead at an OP table, I'd be less excited. If this or any other hypothetical rules situation were to arise, does a GM get to have the ultimate answer of "Frack it, we're doing it my way so deal with it."

Or must an OP GM assuage any and all rules issues whenever they come up?

You absolutely may run your table, and make rulings as necessary. Fozzy is right that you should obviously make an effort to make the correct rules calls, but sometimes things fall into conflicting interpretations (like Scent/Stealth) or outside the rules completely.

I frequently start my sessions with a brief statement that I welcome rules input from the players, but that sometimes I will just have to make a call and keep things moving.
Many stores and conventions only allow you a 4 hour window, including mustering and paperwork. While many scenarios can be easily completed in that time, many cannot... especially if you get bogged down in long rules discussions/ lookup sessions.

I will add to Neil's statement that as adamant and strident as I might be on the board here, at the table I defer to the GM. If any rules discussion at the table runs for more than 30 seconds I'll try to jump forward with "I think the GM should make his call, whatever it is, and after the module we can look up to see what the rule actually is."

During time when I'm waiting for a turn, I'll find the relevant rules text and mark it, and after the session, I'll generally say something like, "Just for future reference, here's the rules text for X."

Really, the time to talk the rules is outside of game (here, while waiting for the session, after the session, whatever). During the game is where all the time you spent debating rules boils into make a call, keep playing, keep the fun going. Never argue the rules with the GM during the session. Time is too short, and generally it interrupts the story. I'd much rather stay in role and trust that I've trained the GM (at least that's how I think of it :)) well enough by now.

How Scent actually works aside *Though I kind of agree with Seraphimpunk with James when it come to rule calls, he is terrible at it and is wrong many times, would have more if it came from Jason or SKL, and it deserves a post in the rules sections* A Gm can not just change rules, but he can interpret rules that are not clear, based on everything he has.

+1

Random board posts are random.

Also, 3.5 did not grant skill points at all.

Headband of Vast Intelligence

Aura moderate transmutation; CL 8th

Slot headband; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6); Weight 1 lb.

Description

This intricate gold headband is decorated with several small blue and deep purple gemstones. The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Intelligence of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the headband is worn. A headband of vast intelligence has one skill associated with it per +2 bonus it grants. After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer's total Hit Dice. These ranks do not stack with the ranks a creature already possesses. These skills are chosen when the headband is created. If no skill is listed, the headband is assumed to grant skill ranks in randomly determined Knowledge skills.

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, fox's cunning; Cost 2,000 gp (+2), 8,000 gp (+4), 18,000 gp (+6)

Headband of Intellect

This device is a light cord with a small gem set so that it rests upon the forehead of the wearer. The headband adds to the wearer’s Intelligence score in the form of an enhancement bonus of +2, +4, or +6. This enhancement bonus does not earn the wearer extra skill points when a new level is attained; use the unenhanced Intelligence bonus to determine skill points.

Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Wondrous Item, fox’s cunning; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6).

Thought I would bring this up in here since I know of players in our group that are doing this.

Headband of Intellect got updated. The update specifically says that the Int bonus from the headband does not give you retroactive new skill points to place.

It used to be that when you put on that headband of Intellect +2 you got your level (or 2xlvl / 3xlvl if you had the bigger headbands) in new skill points to distribute. I know of a lot of players who used this to buy into a bunch of knowledge skills they didn't start with. Needless to say they will be readjusting their characters at our next game session.

Headband of Vast Intelligence

Aura moderate transmutation; CL 8th

Slot headband; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6); Weight 1 lb.

Description

This intricate gold headband is decorated with several small blue and deep purple gemstones. The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Intelligence of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the headband is worn. A headband of vast intelligence has one skill associated with it per +2 bonus it grants. After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer's total Hit Dice. These ranks do not stack with the ranks a creature already possesses. These skills are chosen when the headband is created. If no skill is listed, the headband is assumed to grant skill ranks in randomly determined Knowledge skills.

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, fox's cunning; Cost 2,000 gp (+2), 8,000 gp (+4), 18,000 gp (+6)

Also, no change is listed in any of the errata documents for Page 517/518 (where headband of Vast Intelligence is located)

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

Even though I'm the official stick-in-the-mud Venture-Captain, I'm going to agree with Fozzy here.
It is pretty clearly in the scope of the rules (provided the Adopted is used properly (ex Tusked, not Toothy)), and while a little weird, it's not unbalancing or something likely to become incredibly widespread due to its optimization potential.
I might ask the player to give a role-playing reason to explain it, though that would fall outside the PFS requirements. I'd accept the one above, but I'd bet creative players could come up with many more.

Extending this logic means an elf adopted by a tribe of Shoanti can take Bred for War (as long as said elf is over six feet tall) and a dwarf adopted by Azlanti parents can take Azlanti Inheritor.

By RAW, I agree that one can take any racial trait. It just seems very wrong to include physical characteristics passed down by blood, when the trait represent learning from one's adopted family.

Yes, a character with the Adopted trait can take either of these traits (with the provision of Bred For War that he be at least 6 feet tall).

If you do not like the fact that these traits are legal, then you should argue for a change in the rules, rather than simply ignoring the rule.

From a roleplaying perspective, while the text of the traits states that they are passed down by blood, one could always include a backstory detailing a blood-ceremony where the adopted child is made a member of the clan/race though a religious/cultural/magical ceremony that forever binds them to that group.

"By each cutting your hands, and binding them together, you give your child the blood of your blood. The blood of your fathers. And grandfathers. Forever hence, this child shall be ours, and we shall be his. None - not even the gods may speak otherwise."

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

Then if sight were automatic (someone walking in plain sight within 30 being automatically seen), there would be no sight based perception checks.

But there are.

Right for when people are using stealth.

Think of scent as vision within a 30' radius of dim light (certain conditions modify that). You can still hide from sight within that 30 feet, but have to use the stealth skill to do so. Otherwise line of sight would be sufficient. Now scent has another special in that at 5' it's automatically seen, much like having that 5' be bright light.

So to the original situation:
The dog rolls a perception check. This represents all of its senses.

The rogue's stealth check is such that with the invisibility the dog's vision is fooled. However the rogue's stealth check is not such to fool the dog's scent.

Thus the dog smells something nearby but doesn't see it.

If the dog takes a move action it gets the direction of this unseen scent.

If the dog moves adjacent to the rogue then it would know the square of the rogue, even though it still would not see him.

Make sense?

-James

I completely agree. As I saw the argument framed, people were talking about whether Invisibility gives a -40 to the dog's ability to know something as coming. No, it doesn't because the rogue cannot use stealth to evade the dog's scent ability. His aroma is "in plain sight", which precludes the use of stealth against that ability.

I do love reading the thoughts back and forth on the forum, and indeed learning a thing or two about the rules in the process.. so many thanks to those who put in their two bits and helped teach me stuff I didn't know that I didn't know about scent.

The forum is the right place to have this sort of discussion. However were this to be happening instead at an OP table, I'd be less excited. If this or any other hypothetical rules situation were to arise, does a GM get to have the ultimate answer of "Frack it, we're doing it my way so deal with it."

Or must an OP GM assuage any and all rules issues whenever they come up?

(not to derail the actual rules argument.. as I said I find it most informative in this context!)

I believe that a GM _can_ say frak it. But that a good GM will be cognizant of the rules, and will use the rules in making his rulings.

If I have an animal companion with Scent (or, if I have a Half-Orc PC with the Scent feat), I have every expectation of knowing when creatures come within 30' of me.

If I have a PC on guard duty, or in a dungeon crawl, or whereever, and I have informed the DM that my PC has Scent. I would be highly surprised, and not a little Pissed Off if the DM informed me that so-and-so creature had used stealth or invisibility and was able to get to me and mine without me having caught his scent.

And yes, I would expect that any enemies with scent can do the same to me.

What the discussion on the board is, is an opportunity to educate oneself about how rules that aren't often used might actually work.

Not a lot of people think about scent. So not a lot of people are familiar with the rules. A question gets asked. People look up the rules and talk about the rules. Sometimes people chime in with non-rule based "well not at my table" arguments, and while those are good to talk about, they lie outside of the rules, and into house-rules.

Generally in PFS, house rules are frowned upon, as players have a right to expect a uniform rule set in moving from one table to another with their character.

If scent were automatic there would be no need for scent based perception checks. In the case mentioned above the scent based perception check would take no DC riders for invisibility.

Then if sight were automatic (someone walking in plain sight within 30 being automatically seen), there would be no sight based perception checks.

But there are.

Quote a rule. Or your argument is just babble.

Andrew Christian wrote:

I disagree with your interpretations of Scent.

It is not automatic.

the operative word in the quote of the rules is "can".

The same way I "can" see something 1,000 feet away in a low light situation.

They still need to make a perception check.

In this case, the OP is correct, the +20 to stealth would not apply, and the +8 racial bonus to perception would, because Scent can easily "observe" someone within 30' (or modified based on wind condition.)

My initial reaction was that the OP had hit the nail on the head. I was sure there was a DC connected with using scent. Then after checking the rules I see that the DC relates to using Scent with Survival Skill to track a crearure by smell.

Scent itself allows a creature to be aware of a creature's presence within certain ranges depending on how strong the smell is but not be aware of location until within 5 feet.

The question that springs to mind is there any way to magically mask scent. 20 years ago I remember slipping past the king's guards at a Euro GenCon using a cantrip to totally clean my body and gear so to remove scent for a minute or two. Oddly it never really came up again. The current verion of that would be Prestigigitation perhaps but that would not work.

Any ideas on how to defeat those guard dogs mighty snouts either alchemically or magically?

W

Level 1 druid spell - Negate Aroma

I disagree with your interpretations of Scent.

It is not automatic.

the operative word in the quote of the rules is "can".

The same way I "can" see something 1,000 feet away in a low light situation.

They still need to make a perception check.

In this case, the OP is correct, the +20 to stealth would not apply, and the +8 racial bonus to perception would, because Scent can easily "observe" someone within 30' (or modified based on wind condition.)

The perception DC to "Notice a visible creature" is 0. The modifier for perception due to distance is +1 per 10 feet. So a creature 1000 feet away has a perception DC of 100. Low light adds +2 to this DC.

The scent ability makes creatures within 30' "visible" to the perceiving creature. Even if you apply the same modifier for distance, the perception DC to "see" a creature with scent at 30 feet is only 3.

I have never had to tell a PFS player that they weren't welcome at a table, but I reserve the right to do so. Over the years, I have advised several players that their behavior was causing problems within the game and requested that they address the issue. I have helped draft notices reminding people to maintain appropriate behavior within a store or other public venue. I have politely escorted offensive people from game store or convention center premises when they caused problems.

If someone deliberately or heedlessly messes with other people's characters, they will be firmly directed to change their behavior. If they don't, they will be told to find some other place to game.

They can snivel all they want about "that's my build" and "the rules say I have to go berserk", but I can tell a jerk player when I encounter one.

Yep. If you are GM, you can boot a problem player from your table. Totally within your rights.

Extreme forms of dysfunctional play

will not be tolerated.
...Playing your character is not an
excuse for childish behavior.
...Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved
by asking the offender to leave the table.

I think you are confused how Scent works..

There is no perception check involved with scent.

Scent wrote:

A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet.

The creature with scent knows there is something there as soon as they are within range.

Scent wrote:

The creature detects another creature’s presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action.

With a Move action they know the direction.

Scent wrote:

If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent’s source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.

Once within 5 feet (1 square) they know exactly what they smell is and can attack, though the penalties of being invisible still apply, full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance).

You forgot the most important point in the whole rules outline:

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

The hound has Scent. With Scent, the hound observes anyone within 30' automatically. A creature under observation cannot use stealth. It is not hidden to the hound.

kensai13 wrote:

[

Whoa whoa whoa! Are you serious? My girlfriend and I went to the Paizo booth at Gencon to buy reroll shirts. When picking which shirt we wanted we asked the guy Identified as the "customer service manager" which shirts allowed rerolls and he said any of the official Paizo shirts. I asked if he was sure the goblin shirt was included and he said absolutely. I can't remember his name, but he was very memorable. He had a big curly old timey mustache.

Please don't tell me we spent like $50 on 2 goblin shirts and the guy was full of it? I like the shirts, but a shirt wasn't all I was purchasing.

The only 6 shirts that currently grant re-rolls are the ones listed in the organized play guide. That's the faction shirts for the original 5 factions and the year of the ruby phoenix shirt.

EDIT: but if I was running you in We Be Goblins and you were wearing a goblin shirt...you might be able to convince me to give you a re-roll. it only seems fair...

Maybe if the player sings one of the goblin songs from memory. Loudly. Proudly. In a goblin voice!

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

2 Competence Bonus on all Charisma based checks = 400 x #of checks. Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle...

Except the circlet of persuasion provides a +3 competence bonus to all Charisma related checks for 4,500 gold. So even though it's shifting a slot, I think 6,000 is too high.

So if we price +3 for all checks at 4500, then using the bonus squared rule, the cost for the ability is Bonus Squared x 500; This means that a +2 to all CHA checks would cost 2000. Multiplying by 1.5 (multiple abilities in the same item) we get a cost of 3000gp. Which takes my calculated total from 23K down to 20K. Still pretty close to the 21050gp that I came up with using my "method".

Oops.

It's lower still. It's 3000 instead of 9000. So we're down to 17K, leaving 4050 unaccounted for.

I'm still thinking I undercosted that Aura. 360' Bonus to saves vs. fear. Pretty large.

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Emmeline Kestler wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

I'm against having a firearm be an arcane bond. The potential abuse is pretty high.

To a certain extent, the crafting rules keep it in check. If you wanted a Greater Reliable double musket, you're looking at needing to reach a CL of 12th (ie not in PFS play). If you're going for straight enhancement without any big CL enchantments (which isn't delivering benefits as you're hitting on touch AC anyhow and with clustered shot DR isn't a worry), the player can effectively save something like 20,000+ gold.

The problem isnt the enhancements...its starting with a 4,300 gp item. Something that would normally take a character until aproximately level 4 to buy.

Which leads to the root problem of having mundane weapons priced at >4000gp.

The decision was made to make guns rare, but given free to one class at character creation. it's inevitable that a one-level dip would get used by other classes to gain that high cost item.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but crafting additional specific rules around the guns seems like it will only lead to more problems down the road.

To be entirely honest, I ran a gunslinger the first day the playtest went live. I've puttered about with the mechanics. And I would be perfectly fine if they decided to cut guns from PFS. They've created a morass of rules that don't work to keep guns rare, they just confuse players. Either open up guns completely, get rid of the gunsmithing feat requirement, and let the archetypes that are built around guns be played, or take the guns out of the campaign entirely. This halfbaked measure isn't doing anyone any favors.

I can agree to that, mostly.

Since guns are now legal, pandora's box has already been opened. If they banned them now, they would essentially be banning a whole bunch of already created characters.

So the options are really:

1) Bite the bullet and accept that guns exist. Yes, some player characters might take single level dips into Gunslinger to gain advantage. Yes, Arcane Bond gets wonky. Does any of this seriously threaten the campaign? I personally do not think it does. I think that if you don't like guns in Golarion, you will continue to not like guns in Golarion. I think that if you do like them, you get to continue to like them. I haven't seen any truly broken builds, and even if those might crop up, FAQing a feat or two to a houserule will end up being easier than

2) Keep trying to kludge the entire system so that only certain folks get to have guns. If you go this route, every single character option that comes out ends up having to be vetted through the lens of "how do guns affect this?" "Does this allow a gun toter to somehow come up with another combination we haven't thought of?"

(Reminds me of the joke that Puritans lie awake at night, worried that someone, somewhere might be having fun.)

I personally don't play a gunslinger. I really don't get attracted to it, but that's just personal preference. I can see how some people might like it. And I think that giving players choices is generally a good thing. Even if those choices aren't ones that we might make for ourselves.

This thread has moved slowly towards a general Pathfinder rules thread and away from the realm of PFS.

As a side note. I like the flat cost for named armor idea as it makes it easy for GM's to calculate upgrade costs for their players.

Well, we still need actual rules text, either Campaign Rules, or PFRPG rules. Without either, all this is just suggestions.