FurtiveZoog's page

There should be a rules exception with the justification: "Yes, because it is too funny not to."

Can a GM make a Module more difficult?

...

Modules in campaign mode, yes. Campaign mode is basically a home game with as much variation as you want. Want to play a class/race not allowed in PFS but still want PFS credit? Play campaign mode. Want to be able to adjust encounters on the fly to ramp up difficulty for your players? Run campaign mode.

Please note, however, that campaign mode is limited to APs and specific modules only. And if you are wanting to ramp up difficulty as a GM be sure your players are aware of your desire to do so.

Is there a list somewhere of which modules can be played in campaign mode? The only one I know about is The Dragon's Demand. (I had hoped Thornkeep was one but, alas, no.)

xavier c wrote:

Why don't you guy make new 0-level spells?. I have not seen any new ones in your resent books

Because of the fact that they're at will, and because wizards automatically start with them so if we make new ones that's weird, and because the design space for 0 level spells is VERY restrictive.

If it is OK to ask another detail about this -

It would seem to me that it then wouldn't be overpowering, since a wizard would still be limited in how many different 0-level spells they could have prepped at once. :)

Since the original cantrips came out so long ago (much less powerful than a modern cantrip), I've found them charming and wished there were more of them.

Hi all,

I wanted to say that I really appreciate the invite, but I am going to have to decline new games for now. I'm spending too much time gaming, as it is, unfortunately.

While I am sure it is the right answer, it still pains me to miss a good game with good people! Perhaps sometime in the future space will open up.

Thanks again,

Matt

Yeah, in a party of 5 3rd level characters, it was started invisible and killed one character the first round, then killed the next character the next round and a bit (the 'unbreakable' fighter), and the rest of us fled as fast as possible. Normally we wouldn't have been able to get away (since it flies and is also faster), but the GM let my iron spikes work on a door just before it got to us and we were allowed to get away.

One character felt that his character should have really been killed and so had him reported dead (it was PFS play), but were were able to retrieve one of the bodies and sell stuff to get another of the characters raised and restored. Sadly, not both.

While we were only 3rd level (I believe the scenario was supposedly appropriate for 4 3-5th level characters), I really have no idea what level we would have to be for the thing to not eviscerate one character per turn, at least the way the rules for its abilities were interpreted. Although it was mentioned that it doesn't do great damage non-flanking, it was really easy for it to use its Wand of Invisibility to go invisible again, killing a new character each time. With great saves, too, I don't think we had a chance of even knocking it down a bit.

All in all, there were a lot of players with really bad tastes in their mouths, to say the least.

Unfortunately, the scenario killed the group in addition to killing some of the characters, although I think most or all of the people are still playing - just not playing any more Thornkeep. I had actually considered still trying to run it for a group I GM but, since we are running it for PFS credit and I found that there is no "campaign mode", I couldn't "fix" the egregious sections, and I won't give my players the same bad experience we had. Fortunately, I hadn't bought it yet since I was still a player.

Hi all,

Unfortunately, I will not be able to join up because of a lack of time. I'm especially sad since I think Lithrac has the will to get it done, and because I know so many of you and think it is looking to be a great group. (I'm Matt/FurtiveZoog/Norine/Kellean/Oti/etc.)

Thanks for the invite, though, and sorry for taking a bit of time to think it over - I really wanted to, but I just can't make it work at this time.

~~ Matt

The difficulty I find myself in with this one is that I am "obligated" to run it for people that I only know online as part of PbP Game Day 2, so I am starting to have the concerns expressed earlier about the suicide and the potential forced 'suicide' of a player.

Unfortunately, I lost a family member to suicide a little over a year ago. While this is mostly just a story in a game to me, I know that my wife, for example, would be absolutely devastated by having such an encounter sprung on her. (I have been trying to get her into gaming, so she would be new to PFS, PF, and gaming. But, she is just a hypothetical example.)

While my wife is, fortunately, not playing, I am wondering about the other players about whom I know almost nothing. Have any of them had a suicide among their family or friends? Are any of them very depressed themselves? (I have also struggled with severe depression, "Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent".)

I thought I had read a fair amount about this scenario, but missed mention of the specific nature of the haunt, and I probably relied too much on the rating. It is, by most accounts, a very good scenario - one of the best - and even the nature haunt does make perfect sense given the influence of a demon lord of heresy and suicide.

But, how PFS Game Days are set up, "You are obligated to run the scenario that you're put down for, unless you cannot make a legal table running that specific scenario." From what I've read, it also seems that just about the worst sin in PFS is doing anything to change the game "mechanics".

Ironically, I had asked about the possibility of running different scenarios if I wasn't happy with the ones I chose sight unseen. At the time, I was concerned about quality and whether my players would have a good time with the scenario. (I've purchased several times as many scenarios as I've run since I tend to be choosey.)

Now, though, I seem to be "obligated" to run a particular scenario, with a potentially very objectionable element, and have to run it 'as is' with a group of people I don't really know. I'm trying to figure out if there is a good way to even ask if this element is a sensitive issue for any of the players.

When powder "momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there", how long is that?

And, how does that square with the Glossary entry on Invisibility where it says "One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away)." Growing up, I've learned that most substances I get coated with take a very long time to just fall off or get blown away and I end up having to shower eventually. (Granted, it does say "object", not "creature", there.)

Does flour thrown on an invisible creature become invisible after very short period of time, while an item that is picked up does not?

One partial compromise could be that powder reveals an invisible creature's location until it goes invisible again, making the powder go with it, although maybe that is too powerful for simple powder? It does, at least, require power to be retrieved and thrown at the right square.

Just as a kid - back in 1980 - but we played homebrewed kobold characters in AD&D. It was so long ago that I don't remember much except that we all loved kobolds. Perhaps it was the love of the underdog.

I use one that I found at James the Bard.

For making notes on a PDF generally, I use the free NitroPDF "reader". It allows you to make notes, highlight and cross things out, sign a document, etc., and, most importantly, save what you create. It is especially handy in my online PFS games for creating filled-out Chronicle sheets.

I also use the free PCGen program (I like the OS ethos, and that it is free, which is important on my budget), although many people rave about the commercial HeroLab system.

Sorry: Does the Divine Grace class feature "stack" or otherwise work with the Irrepressible trait?

Modifiers from ability scores aren't actually bonuses, strictly speaking. If they are, they're untyped bonuses—which means they stack with all other bonuses except themselves. Thus, if you have multiple things that say "Add your Dex modifier to this roll," you only get to add your Dex modifier once.

So, to answer the actual question:

1) Nope; it's not a typed bonus. It stacks with all other modifiers, but can't stack with itself.

2) If you have Fury's Fall and Weapon Finesse, you've basically got two feats with overlapping effects. You don't get to add your Dexterity modifier more than once to CMB if it's already been included due to any other effect. SO! If you have Weapon Finesse... you'll only want to look at taking Fury's Fall if you're expecting to be using weapons you can't modifier via Weapon Finess...

I have a similar question, at least in the view of some. I have a Paladin character who has Divine Grace class feature and the Irrepressible trait from Quests & Campaigns, which states that "You can use your Charisma modifier in place of your Wisdom modifier when attempting Will saving throws against charm and compulsion effects."

I see them as not overlapping in the same way, with Irrepressible substituting one stat (Cha) for another (Wis), and Divine Grace is a (positive only) bonus to all saves based on Cha.

The Divine Grace class feature also says "a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws", while it could just say "a paladin adds her Charisma modifier to all saving throws". My brain parses that as implying that it is equal to, but not the same as, the Charisma bonus.

Hey Pizzmic,

OK, Thanks for the invite. I'll make a cleric, since I tend to do a lot of those and since no one else does, lol.

I have a gnome cleric (travel and luck subdomains) I'd likely have fun doing another incarnation of, if that sounds good.

137ben wrote:

ArmouredMonk13 wrote:

Wait, do people actually ignore any potential RP when they dump to 7? I thought that the entire point of dumping down to a 7 was for RP purposes.

I've never seen anyone try to ignore it completely...

from the discussion, it sounds like people try to rp their 7s, but Jacob Saltband doesn't like the way they RP them.

Saying that your lower then average int fighter is a 'instinctual' tactic genius isnt RPing your low stat its ignoring it.

I would disagree. Sometimes, low intelligence (modeled by Int) is measured more as the speed of getting to the best answer, rather than the quality of thinking. (IQ tests variously build in speed as an important factor.) So, one of my 'stupid' characters in another game would get the great idea - or understand he was being insulted - but just much, much later. You could also be much more intelligent (or cunning) in one way but much less intelligent overall, such as with many animals - getting back to the question 'instinct' - or an 'idiot savant'.

I recently created a low-Cha (Cha 7) wizard, which can be classic stat dumping (although he is fairly strong, a 9 for an elf), but which has created my new favorite character - my "elf with Asperger's" - exaggerating some of my own characteristics.

On the other hand, a low-Int gnome cleric, although the idea charmed me, didn't work out as well, so I re-wrote her for 2nd level with Int 12 - more as I was playing her, along with my 12 Int Paladin and 14 Int/7 Wis Oracle.

Derek's a good GM, so hopefully he doesn't burn out, especially since he is doing so many online games (some of which I am in!).

As for guilt, it is helping keep me going ATM, since I don't want to leave the players I've accumulated gameless.

I do like getting the whole story as a GM. Ideally, I first get a chance to play a scenario and then, with my own experiences as a player to help, I can run it more effectively as a GM and I then get the inside story.

(Not to get it going again, but as a side note I had suggested in another thread (which got no love :P) that giving GMs more opportunities to repeat scenarios for GM credit would be helpful in keeping GMs going. Especially now that I've run some, I could probably re-run them easier for no credit, but then my own characters will end up falling behind in my groups. In live action, it is choosing to GM a game or play a game; online, I could GM one game or play 5 for about the same time commitment. Eh.)

Hey Derek, I don't have the live game GMing experience, but it did seem that, from a player's perspective in non-PFS games, there was often a much more adversarial relationship with the GMs. I'm not really sure why that would be.

Golariofun - Yeah, that's the situation I'm in: New GM with a lot of new players, although I'm with the fourth scenario now with some. I'd hate to have everyone's efforts so far - months of PbP to get to second level - vanish in a TPK because I chose the wrong scenario. I still really like FS I, though. Maybe if they do actually come up with a set of replacement FS, introductory scenarios they will be less prone to player death, especially death by critical hit.

It's certainly possible that I am overestimating player death, perhaps because of the scenarios I've run. The First Steps I and II, for example, had some good possibilities of player death, even TPKs according to some threads. Fortunately, the players have gotten lucky where they needed to be (or, not too unlucky) and the situation that could have been a TPK had a written-in out that kept one part from going too badly.

Walter Sheppard - I think I would also agree that it is against the spirit of PFS to turn people away from the table if at all possible, but I was also working from my experiences as an online-only PFS GM. In that regard, every single game I GMed or played 'should' have been 7 players since there are always 7+ players willing to play. Heck, I say "For full disclosure, I'm relatively new to Pathfinder, to Play-by-Post play, to the Pathfinder Society, and to GMing" and I still get too many players hoping to play! Interestingly, the online game day had 6 players per table, with the 7th player showing up as wait-listed, IIRC.

The Beard - Yeah, maximizing playing opportunities is one reason I always go for six players, in addition to not wanting to be as likely to kill characters.

I've even been tempted to run 7 characters for that reason, but I wasn't sure whether that would make the scenarios too easy for the players and too cumbersome otherwise.

(It would be better still to run two of the same, but I haven't had the time if I still want to play and not have my own characters get too far behind.)

FLite - Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions, which I don't really have enough data or experience to avoid. That is a good point about the different types of encounters in a scenario, which could potentially reduce the per scenario death toll.

BigNorseWolf - Also a good point about running, although much of my experience so far deals with Color Spray taking out much of the party. (I disdain using coup de grace or it would be much worse, I am sure. Even the AoO doesn't mean much when there is no one nearby left standing to try it.)

tl;dr: Dying sucks, and even small risks add up over time, so how many players (4, 5, or 6) should I allow on a PFS scenario? How dangerous should PFS scenarios be?

I had a question - or two related questions - about how dangerous a PFS scenario should be since, although you can't mess with the "mechanics" of a scenario, you can decide how many players/characters to allow on the scenario (at least in online play).

Having one expectation, I was running six characters through a scenario that another PFS GM had limited to four characters. As I was discussing with this GM, one really odd part about PFS play is that while there is a hard and fast rule against changing "mechanics" in the PFS scenarios, the same Tier 1-2 scenario would be presented in most cases to 4 brand-new level 1 characters with character-driven builds who's players just sat down with each other for the first time and to 6 (or even 7) almost-third level characters with optimized builds who know all of each other’s tactics and were even designed from step 1 to be a team. (I guess at some point in the development of the scenarios they decided to modify things a bit for bigger or smaller parties, at least. I'm not sure at what point that was since I haven't run that many scenarios.)

On one hand, the most memorable encounters for me as a player were ones where it seemed that everyone was going to die (but no one actually did). On the other hand, death in PFS is especially harsh given that it (or a similar remove-from-play fate) means starting over at 1st, while in most home games I would guess you would come in with a new character at or just below the group level. (That would seem a good change for PFS: When a character dies, you get to make a new character 1 or 2 levels below, starting with some slightly below average amount of gold.)

Doing a little math (feel free to correct me on it), having even a 5% chance that a character dies permanently per encounter means about 16% of characters will make it to level 4. (I think the math - given 4 combats per scenario, three scenarios per level, and 3 levels - would be .95^36). Reducing the chance of death to 2% per encounter brings the survival to 4th level up to about 48%. (Making it to 6th level would be about 5% and 30%, respectively.)

(I was picking 4th level since that is about the first time would seem to have enough Prestige Points to get a Raise Dead, if essentially all of their scenarios earned them two points. Additionally, though, Raise Dead may not work because of the cause of death or time since death, may cost more in PFS if the death wasn’t in or near a substantial city, and will cause lot of lingering damage and expenses with its ‘permanent’ negative levels.)

So, from a character risk-of-death standpoint, are scenarios best run with 4, 5, or 6 characters?

Ah! Thank you, Reinhardt! (I haven't played an alchemist, but I've GMed a few and should have known better. Fortunately, it hasn't come up.)

I wasn't aware that anything but the regular alchemist's bombs added the alchemist's Int modifier onto damage. So, not acid or alkali flasks or any of that. Am I missing that somewhere? Thanks!

That is interesting about the Interrogation spell, Gauss, in that it does suggest that Ear-Piercing Scream, like Interrogation, is simply poorly written so as to not include the minimum clause.

I actually meant, BTW, that I was agreeing with DM_Blake's (last) assessment that Rory's view (only the Daze effect at first level, with 1d6 damage coming in at 2nd level) was probably more valid, RAW. But now, if viewed similarly, Interrogation would have no meaning to a first-level caster - not even having something like the Daze effect of the Ear-Piercing Scream.

So, back to having the 1st through 3rd-level effects of EPS doing both Daze and 1d6 damage, and 1st through 3rd-level effects of Interrogation allowing 1 question.

(I was accused of being a bit of a "rules lawyer", but I like to have the correct answer, especially in PFS; working some with PCGen, where you are trying to code the rules, probably has exacerbated the situation.)

Thanks for the discussion!

I think GM_Blake's last assessment is probably my own, although I'll probably keep doing it as 1d6 for levels 1 and 2 since that is the opinion of the player and it errs in the player's favor, at least until something definitive comes up.

Hey, a probably quick and simple Ear-Piercing Scream damage question: Does it do 1d6 damage at 1st and 2nd (caster) levels, and 2d6 at 3rd and 4th levels, etc.?

It is worded, though, that the target "... takes 1d6 points of sonic damage per two caster levels...". Arguably, then, 1st level wouldn't get the 1d6 caster bonus because, well, it isn't two levels... So, you would only get the 1d6 at 2nd level, 2d6 at 4th, etc.

I am probably reading too much into it, but I was wondering because such spells often are written like, "1d6 plus 1d6 for every additional two levels...", IIRC.

Thanks!

Sniggevert, I think your answer makes the most sense given that part of the Guide, which I hadn't been thinking about (if not in the more 'realistic sense'), so I think that is the standard I will use. (It also allows me to use the potions and wand charges, etc., without doubly-punishing the characters for either hard-fought battles or creative solutions that avoid the battle entirely.)

In the last encounter, I also had one of the opponents, as per the combat directions, flee after being brought down to a certain HP number. Given that that it is essentially a defeat, and that the rest of the group was defeated and captured, I think I would now keep a fleeing character's items on the Chronicle sheet, too.

kinevon, That about the potion is what I was originally told (I think by a VC or VL...), but it seems to be in disagreement with a VL above, where it is stated that a potion used by an opponent is considered not found. (Reducing charges would then just be a logical consequence, with some of the charges essentially being 'not found' since they were used.)

Is there a way to get a more definitive ruling?

I'm considering starting another scenario sometime soon, so I'll definitely keep you in mind.

I also have something of an introduction that I post to my games, such as here, that you may find helpful.

The hardest part, I think, is finding the game... Most people will tell you to play what you want to play, and that is good advice, but, if you are like me and happy to play a support character, many games seem to have need for a healer since fewer people seem to go that route.

Good questions!

I'm pretty new, too, and was I was told by someone that potions and items used up by the combatants would still be considered 'found', so I am glad to see the question asked here.

It does make me feel a little bad, though, that if I play an opponent a bit smarter (but still within the scenario's published guidelines), then I am punishing the characters two ways, both by giving them a potentially more difficult encounter but with less rewards for it.

Also, then, would I modify the chronicle sheet if something is found that is partially used up? Say, the Wand of X (Y charges) is used in the battle and is now a Wand of X (Y-1 charges)?

My solution is to hand out faction missions and encourage the players to do them.

I am yet to receive any complaints as a result of doing this, and, when I'm playing season 0-4, I still request the missions.

I feel that the loss of faction missions is a blow to PFS.

I would agree, for the most part. I disliked some of the faction mission that required some single skill roll that the player may or may not have ranks in, but overall they added flavor and role-playing opportunities to the scenarios.

When starting my online PbP run of Mists of Mwangi, I gave out the missions but emphasized that they were for flavor only and that the new secondary success conditions would be used.

A happy middle ground, I think, could have been found where the second prestige point could come from either the group completing the overall secondary success condition or the player completing their individual faction quest.

I appreciate the input.

A change, though, wouldn't have to treat the different GMing formats differently, so perhaps I should have been more careful in implying that it could or should. My point is more that it is such a 'giant pain in the posterior' that a little more leeway would be appreciated and useful, and I think a change could benefit PbP and non-PbP GMs alike. (Frankly, I don't see the point in limiting the chronicles that can be received, at least beyond the limit of one of each type to each character. Maybe there is a good reason for that that I'm not seeing?)

For some, like myself, PbP gaming is pretty much the only type of gaming that is available or doable, so it is not a choice (or, you could say, it's a choice between gaming and not gaming).

While I would prefer to advance my characters by playing, with the combination of GM rotations and having to focus on GMing (since GMs are in shorter supply), I'm finding that my characters are going to fall behind others that I play with. Right now, I could play several games but not GM, or I could probably GM one or more of the same type but not play any, and I chose to do the latter so as not to leave as many players without a game.

I wish it was better quantified as to what you would get, too.

Is it even defined somewhere if a creature is common, 'general', or 'particularly rare'? For example, is a skeleton or a zombie common (DC 5+) or general (DC 10+)? (It is also odd that the one example for 'particularly rare' is for a creature that is, if fact, unique.)

I do like your idea of downed and dead bodies cluttering up the battlefield, and always thought it was strange when, like in video games, the dead bodies magically evaporate... But, I guess the rules want to keep it simple. :-\

As a medium sized creature myself, I take up considerably more than 5' in one direction and about a third of the space in the other, and it gets more complicated if there are arms (and armaments) and legs all akimbo. Someone stepping into my 5' square would at least have to watch where they trying to step. Add in gruesome but realistic details - like slippery blood on flagstone - and it could be difficult terrain, indeed, IMO.

In any event, keeping dying opponents around and paying attention to their statuses, while cumbersome, does make selective channeling much more critical.

It is so inexpensive I would at first think that it is a single-use item, but the phrase "When she removes the sleeves" seems to imply you can take them off and reuse them. I'm not sure now either, though.

7heprofessor - I really don't have a good reason to be a universalist, as I was joking with BigNorseWolf. At this point, it is the easiest since I am not sure what I want/need to do beyond a bit of everything. So, ease and ignorance, at this point. (I've also only played very low level characters so far.)

I am also not sure about bonded object vs. familiar. A crow or thrush familiar has been useful as a scout, but the ability to cast any single spell in the spellbook is also pretty attractive. Perhaps something for another search or thread.

BigNorseWolf, There are two reasons for my guy to be a universalist: 1) it's character-driven, and 2) I am not good at optimization/tactics/etc. :P (I'm seriously thinking about the scroll scholar archetype...)

Is a Wand of Bless worth it for a cleric (after CLW)? No saving throw, but only a small bump to each character.

I was wondering about what would be good prestige point purchases early in a Pathfinder Society universalist wizard's career. Any suggestions, or has this been covered in another guide?

For clerics and others with CLW on the spell list (and possibly those with Use Magic Device), it seems a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is a pretty standard purchase. But what about other classes, and for clerics after the first two points? (Obviously, it would make sense to save some for later needs, but the purchases seem really useful at early levels.)

I was thinking of a Wand of Mage Armor and/or Shield (for its anti-magic missile effect) and a Wand of Magic Missile and/or Color Spray.

Being a newish play-by-post GM and PFS player, myself, I was working on something of a 'how-to' that I've been posting on the Campaign page of games that I'm running.

It might be helpful to you, and I'd appreciate your thoughts and criticisms.

Thanks, Matt/FurtiveZoog

Thanks Hugo Rune, I think I will use a system like that, at least in private games. It works well for items like paper, too (very low hardness, high flammability).

I remember a table from the 1e DMG that listed saving throws (or some such) for all kinds of effects versus all kinds of materials. Maybe something like that could be created or adapted for home games (or in future PF/PFS additions), too.

I guess, seebs, that the ultimate answer, for now, would be just to use 'GM discretion'.

Well, since the explosive bombs specifically mention catching fire and the regular bombs don't, I would think that that would be more evidence that regular alchemist bombs don't cause things to catch fire.

As for the fireball, do attended items only get potentially damaged on a failed saving throw of a 1? That is what I thought I read in 3.5 and, otherwise, you would have a lot of naked characters running around after each fireball. I would think fallen enemies, on the other hand, would have a lot of destroyed equipment after the fireball. I always remember the downside of a fireball being a lot of lost loot, at least how I played 1e.

Hmmm. From that, I might say that since it is instantaneous (as an exploding bomb) and since it isn't specifically mentioned as capable of starting fires (like a fireball is), it wouldn't catch things on fire.

Thanks!

In a PFS PbP game, an alchemist has just thrown one of his bombs in a warehouse with wooden floors and boxes of goods. Since the bombs do fire damage, is there a rule for determining if something catches on fire? (The question could be applied more generally to any fire attack.)

I, at least, wasn't finding one in the PRD, and while it makes sense that items would have a chance of catching on fire, I hate to arbitrarily add difficulties to a main attack.

Wuliem, The 'shopping' list for purchases is 'in' the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (take a look at my Campaign page for the link). It has descriptions of what anyone can buy from the various sourcebooks (e.g. any mundane items, etc., alchemical items, weapons up to +1, armor up to +1, items made of special materials like cold iron, etc.) and what you can 'buy' with Prestige Points (2 points will get you anything that costs 750 gp or less, etc.).

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).

So, I would say that you can craft as many items as you want using your alchemy skill, paying for the raw materials costs and then making the roll (or taking 10) as per the rules on crafting items. Check the PRD or Core Rulebook for the crafting rules and the DCs for the alchemical items you want to create.

Ralklain, I'd say go ahead and use the day job skill now even if you are thinking of retraining it later, with the logic that you are currently 'paying' for that skill instead of having that skill point in something else.

Hmm. I may have taken an overly-broad view of the phrase "character creation". Can you point me in the direction of the website section of the forums; I can't seem to find it, having gone through and searched https://secure.paizo.com/paizo/messageboards.

Is there an easy way to change characters that are "aliases" into official "Pathfinder Society characters"? Or is it something someone "official" could do?

I inherited a PFS PbP game where two of the characters were created as simple aliases instead of as PFS characters. It is my understanding that to get proper credit for the character they are going to need them to be formally PFS characters in the computer, etc., instead of just aliases.

I suppose that the players could make up PFS characters the correct way (through the MyAccount links) and then manually transfer information over, reselect avatars, etc., but the names they would want for their PFS characters are already being used by the aliases. So, I am hoping that there is a better way.

I would like to clarify that I was not deliberately changing the rules in a PFS game, as has been implied. Rather, I was temporarily agreeing to a series of connections in the RAW that could be interpreted together more than one way, so that the correct answer was debatable, at least. Therefore, following the "How to Make Rulings" section in the PFS "GM 101" pdf, I made a reasonable decision quickly enough to not hold up the game unnecessarily and then went here, looking for a more definitively correct interpretation of the rules. When I said "I decided to interpret cover rules for now" and asked "Does anyone else have a more definite idea of how it is supposed to work?", I was pretty much precisely following what is recommended in the pdf:

In order to keep play moving during a scenario, it is often necessary for a GM to make rulings on the spot, especially when something is not covered by the rules or when no one is sure how a particular rule works. Remember that an event coordinator or a fellow GM can be a great resource when trying to decide how a rule works. If you make a ruling for an unclear situation, stick with it for the rest of the scenario but make sure that your players know that it applies just for this game session.

The point that both humans and halflings/goblins occupy the same 5' cube is a good one, but it is not always strictly true that they are equivalent in the space that they take up or block. This is the case in the analogous "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee" rule where

If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.

In this case, the two sizes - Medium and Small - would be treated differently based on what size is two or three sizes bigger.

And while I agree that a halfling will be waving its arms around and such, potentially being higher than the low wall, if we are talking about the total amount of cover - and not "firing into melee", which is about having to avoid friendlies - then I would point out that the wall is, well, solid and takes up the whole 5' base width, while no halfling, however chubby, would do so. The hard cover of the wall thus seems at least the equivalent of the soft cover of the halfling and, presumably, if one could be fired over or around under some condition then so could the other.

A character in a PbP PFS game that I am running has a quadruped eidolon and the question arose as to whether he could fire through its square without incurring the usual soft cover penalty (the eidolon was right in front of him and the monster was a bit farther away).

In the rules on Low Obstacles and Cover,

A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.

I've never seen it come up that a quadruped would be considered a low enough cover to be ignored, but is does make some sense.

On the other hand, there is a special feat for small or smaller creatures, low profile, which has as part of it the specific benefit "... In addition, you do not provide soft cover to creatures when ranged attacks pass through your square."

I would think that if small or 'low' creatures regularly modified the usual soft cover rules then it would be mentioned more specifically. (Of course, it might and I could just be missing it...)

But, since it was a good argument and makes sense, I decided to interpret cover rules for now to think of the cover provided by low/small creatures more like the low wall example.

Does anyone else have a more definite idea of how it is supposed to work?

I would vote no. To me, one interesting aspect of your concept was that one could be playing old school scenarios updated with modern rulesets and options.

I, too, loved first edition, but couldn't go back. For that matter, I loved 3.5 in its day, but can't go back now that I've experienced some of Pathfinder.

I agree with Mez.

Here is the Goblin with the d20, but it is unavailable in all sizes.