Galvanix's page

Just want to clarify that it appears that since the Archetype is approved and that 'Herbalism' can be used in place of Alchemy to create alchemical cures, found in the PCC: Alchemy Manual (assuming the Pei Zin Alchemy section only), that a Pei Zin Practitioner appears to be able to 'craft' certain alchemcial items for use in PFS just like an Alchemist and/or Investigator.

This is not a 'is it legal question.' Its more of a rant against an oddity that is becoming more and more common in our local area PFS game(s).

I call it the 'I have one of those' character builds.

Last week I was running a game where a 3rd level fighter was utilizing six (that's right...six) two-handed weapons in a bizarre 'max it out' style of build.

So here is the list for your amusement: Greatsword (8 lbs), Guisarme (12 lbs), Heavy Flail (10 lbs), Lucerne Hammer (12 lbs), Halberd (12 lbs) and a Sarissa (12 lbs).

That's right and he was decked out in an Masterwork Agile Breastplate with armor spikes. Just in armor and weapons, the character was pushing 96 pounds...

Being a professional historian (yes, really) and a prudent GM, I asked- how does your character carry all that stuff? His answer was simple, " I have an 18 strength and a Masterwork Backpack!"

I said, "No, how does your character actually 'carry' all that stuff?" The players answer made me chuckle, "In my backpack or strapped over my shoulder." I said that's great but just from a game mechanics point of view don't you think this is RIDICULOUS? He said, "Nope." He added, "I can get to it all really quick... I have Quick Draw, so I just drop them as I go and pull out another one if I need to." I just shook my head and said, "Ok, let's get back to the game." The player responded, "It's TOTALLY legal and I have several characters who do it."

Oh Pathfinder... sometimes you give me a headache...

I recently had a rather interesting question put to me by a rather new(ish), but good GM- high energy, great prep and the players really like him. So here it is...

If they (the GM) doesn't own or otherwise have access to a particular supplement or Paizo product can them limit or 'not-allow' a particular character class(s) at their table. I was inclined to say that they had to allow any player with the proper reference materials at their table, but they further explained that they do not own either Occult Adventures or Ultimate Intrigue and for that reason don't feel "comfortable" or "knowledgeable" enough to GM when parties contain characters utilizing either of these books. He explained that it slows games down when he has to either borrow the book from the player in question to double-check a power or ability and feels that because of this he is often second-guessed by players.

I mentioned that he might want to just GM Core- but frankly there isn't that much (if any) call for Core games in my particular area. I am putting this out there go get some feedback from the community. Ultimately, he is volunteering his time and I can't 'force' him to do anything against his will... but I was wondering if anyone else has had an issue like this before and wouldn't mind sharing some of their wisdom.

Thanks.

I will be brief, but a few weeks ago I was GM'ing a group of fellow PFS members, a few of whom I didn't know very well. The group contained a total of 5 players. A Bard and Cleric with fair to good Diplomacy skills, etc. and 3 other players who had each dumped their Charisma to 7 or 8.

Normally this wouldn't be a problem and I am sure we have seen these type of character(s) before. Not every character needs (or should have) a high Diplomacy skill, but I was then confronted by the 'Meta-Gamer.'

While the Bard (who has a +8) Diplomacy skill is trying to persuade an NPC to allow them to enter into a restricted area (blah, blah). The Cleric then adds, "I will also tell the guard about the importance of our mission, can I aid the Bard?" I respond yes and the Cleric (at +5) then rolls and obtains a result of 15 or so- successfully aiding (vs. 10).

Before I begin back with the NPC, one of the other players immediately pipes up, "Hey I am going to aid too!" Then proceeds to roll dice and tell the player next to him to roll also. I ask them if they really want to do that and the first player responds, "Yeah it doesn't matter anyway, even if we fail." I then advised them while that might be true in some situations, in this particular case, if they missed their aid another check by more than 5, then I would impose a -2 modifier to the overall result. I explained that Diplomacy relies not just on saying the right things, but also not saying the wrong things, as well as there being a particular mechanism for a particularly bad roll (for Diplomacy). Needless to say, neither successfully aided, while one of the players actually failed by more than 5 (the target roll was 10).

I was then told for the next 5 minutes how I am the only GM to ever have interpreted the last sentence of the aid other (when applied to skills) the way I did- i.e. 'The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.'

This gets me to my point regarding the very common META of PFS. Should we (collectively) assign some limitations/guidelines to the use of the Aid Another action in addition to those found in the Core Rulebook? I think skills like Diplomacy and Bluff (and a few others) should have consequences for failed aid attempts. What about other skills? Perhaps saying that only a character with a +0 or better can aid? This was suggested by one of the players. I for one, wouldn't like to see it, but there does seem to be a huge amount of 'aiding-another' going on. Maybe some guidelines on how many players can aid? There seems to be a wide array of table variation within PFS... which is often good, but this might be one of those occasions where might need to tighten things up within PFS.

This is just food for thought and to initiate a constructive discussion... I can't be the only one out there who has thought about this before.

This is a little tongue and cheek but at the heart of it there is a point which I think should be made. A couple of weeks ago at a regularly scheduled PFS game, a group of 6 players (level 3-4) sat down to play a scenario. 4 of the characters had familiars or animal companions. We had an Inquisitor with an animal companion, a hunter with an animal companion, a druid with an animal companion and a wizard with an bad-ass familiar (with the mauler archetype). Each of these players is reasonably experienced, but OMG the lag it created in the game was almost unbearable as we got into combat, with each turn seeming like an eternity. I started to feel bad for the GM as the numerous attacks, movement, delays and what not were being adopted by the players and their companions.

My cleric (no companion) was free to sit back and watch (no lie, I just kept holding my action) as the rest of the party and their companions tore threw each encounter in relative short order.

So as a few of us sat and talked afterwards, it was generally agreed on that companions and familiars are a very fun part of Pathfinder and PFS. But what also found was the general style of play makes companions rather tough. We each agreed that in general companions are often nearly as good as an additional character and can really take away some of the gusto from the rest of the party (particularly if they don't have a pet). So we thought in regards to play balance that some mechanic should be built into PFS to include the combat and support that companions provide (not familiars). These were a couple of our ideas:

#1 That every 2 full animal companions at a table count as a player. So if a table had 2 characters with animal companions then only 6 players could play at the table (max). More of an acknowledgement of more difficulty on the part of the GM to handle more stuff going on.

#2 That a character with a companion counts as 1 level higher than their actual level when calculating APL only.

#3 (Similar to 2) That half of the total number of companion levels (for all companions present) be added when calculating the APL for a given scenario. For example a party of 5 players (levels 3, 3, 5, 4, 4) have 2 animal companions of level 5 and 3, the APL would be calculated as 3+3+5+4+4(+4)/5 rather than 3+3+5+4+4/5 as normal. This would occasionally knock a group up, but not always.

Like I said, these are just a few of our initial thoughts, they are by no means meant to be exhaustive on the subject- but we just wanted to put them out there and see what the rest of you thought. We can't have been the only players to ever have experienced this...

The Greensting Scorpion appears in both Bestiary I and IV. In Bestiary I it has a rather limited description which is much more complete than in IV.

At the heart of my question is a player who has a Greensting familiar which utilizes the Mauler Archetype from Familiar Folio (page 11)- what stats do a Medium Sized Greensting have? I have heard competing arguments which are as follows:

#1 The Greensting uses the stats for a Cave Scorpion out of Bestiary I because that entry shows the size increases for various CR of scorpions based on size.

#2 The Greensting uses the stats out of Bestiary IV which are modified by their size increases as per the table on page 295-296 of Bestiary I, which would mean that the scorpion does not have claw attacks- because Bestiary IV does not list damage for them.

Personally, I find it had to believe the scorpion wouldn't have a claw (pincer) attack, but this is for PFS play so I want to make the right call.

The Underground Chemist Archetype is legal in PFS play and includes several quasi-Alchemist abilities (i.e. level bonus to Craft Alchemy checks and the selection of Alchemist Discoveries).

It seems reasonable that given the archetype description and the alternate talents and abilities that accompany the class that the inclusion of this specific archetype to craft alchemical items should be allowed, like the Alchemist, Investigator and Poisoner (also a rogue archetype).

Given the amount of 'throwing' that this archetype seems to support, any player will have to do so very sparingly or more likely go bankrupt buying various mixtures in which to function within the archetype.

Another question regarding a Rogue with the 'Bomber' Rogue Talent. Simply put, can this character select the Extra Bombs feat (which affects a class ability) in order to increase their number of bombs per day. After looking at the rules and the verbiage contained within, I am inclined to say yes, but want to run it by the forum first before I give an answer to the player in question- I will defer to the majority opinion.

Alright PFS Gamers I am going to to throw the following player interaction (incident) out to see how varied the thoughts are on this subject.

Scenario: A group of 4 PFS players and a GM have met up to play in a standard PFS scenario. The players range from levels 3 to 5 and include a Dwarven Warrior (4), Human Rogue (3), Human Inquisitor of Phasmara(4) and a Tiefling Necromancer (5). So in the pre-adventure meet up the party has a chance to interact and discuss who they are and what their abilities are. The Tiefling describes himself as, "a master of undeath" to which the Inquisitor replies, "Phasmara rebukes such black necromancy and you will be best served in practicing only those magics which will not result in her final retribution." (or something like that). The Necromancer agrees and the party is off. Then the drama begins, after fighting their third (optional) encounter the party has suffered greatly, and the Rogue is KIA. The Necromancer, then casts Animate Lesser Undead on a human corpse and the drama starts! After some bickering at the table, the party agrees to continue on to the final encounter (for the Inquisitor-only because he felt honor bound to finish)- the Necromancer with his zombie in tow. So the final encounter ensues and the remaining 3 characters are bashed hard. The Inquisitor proceeds to only heal himself and the Dwarf, and makes the Necromancer rely on his own devices which are soon exhausted. The combat ends with the Dwarf and Inquisitor left standing... The Necro is at -6 hit points and not stabilizing. The Necromancers player beseeches the Inquisitors player to heal him or at least stabilize him and the Inquisitor replies "no." The Dwarf tries to help to no avail. As the rounds tick down, the Necro bleeds out. Needless to say tempers are high from the person playing the Necromancer who states something to the effect of 'you're not playing PFS right'. The GM appeared at a loss and simply stated, "He told you" and "I can't make him heal you." The GM who began to second guess himself sometime later asked me what I thought and I told him I thought he handled it well given the players early discussions and the role-playing aspect of the Inquisitor character. Another GM advised that this type of 'in-game BS only goes to destroy PFS' and the GM in question should have worked harder to resolve the issue (basically twisting the arm of the Inquisitors player to heal the Necro character). I disagreed- sometimes s**! happens and its only a game. What do you all think?

I was recently running a scenario and the following issue came up. The player in question was playing a rogue (level 6) with the Bomber Rogue Talent (page 7 of the Ranged Tactics Toolbox). During the course of play, the player in question revealed that he had purchased (selected) 2 Alchemist discoveries- smoke and stink bomb.

It is my understanding that per the Ranged Tactics Toolbox, that a Rogue who has the Bomber talent can then purchase via a Rogue Talent the Bomber's Discovery (Su). As written, it appears to only be purchasable one time. I felt very comfortable making a decision which removed the stink bomb discovery from being usable, but the amount of contention I received from this and another player present made me want to ask this question via the PFS forums to double-check my ruling. The player in question was adamant that this issue had been discussed and an official answer given by one of the powers that be. I have searched the FAQ, other threads and haven't found any direct answers to this question.

Thanks...

With the release of the ACG, I took and interest in the Skald Hybrid class.

Keeping with the description, which is of an obvious (Nordic) Ulfen bend, I would like to make the following suggestion. In regards to weapon proficiencies, exchange whip, rapier and sap for hand axe, throwing axe and battle axe.

I think this would add more flavor and help to define the class even better (more in line with a Viking-like culture) than it already is.

I am posting this here after being encouraged to do so by some fellow PFS members who are also aware of my development of custom creation guidelines for Clerics in a campaign I had run several years ago. During that campaign, the issue arose regarding different 'types' of Clerics representing various deities and my player's desire to try out something new.

I then put together a point-purchase system which would allow for the re-creation of the core Cleric class, but would also allow for the customization by players to obtain a specific feel for different ethos as presented in Gods & Magic. Perhaps this idea will work its way into Paizo or PFS at some level.

Each Divine Caster is built using 12 build points, which must be spent on the following abilities: Weapons/Armor, Spell Casting, Skills & Channeling.

Weapons/Armor (One option must be selected):
0 points= light armor proficiency and weapon proficiency in dagger, dart, club, light mace, staff and sling only. Generally associated with less combat orientated deities such as Desna, Nethys & Phasmara.
2 points= light, medium armor proficiency, shield proficiency*, simple weapon proficiency & proficiency in deities favored weapon. Associated with most deities. (As per core rulebook).
4 points= as above, but includes heavy armor and martial weapons. Commonly among deities with war as part of their portfolio, such as; Iomedae, Gorum & Rovagug.
*- does not include tower shields.

Spell Casting (One option must be selected):
2 points= Reduced spell casting. May select one domain from deities portfolio and receives one less spell per level than normal. Still receives domain spells & bonus spells per wisdom as normal.
4 points= Normal spell casting. As per core class description.
6 points= Advanced spell casting. As above, but may add a third bonus domain, Knowledge. Knowledge domain must also be part of the deities listed domains in order to select this ability, as must the other 2 domains chosen. In addition once per day, the Cleric may spontaneous cast one domain spell whether or not it was memorized, selected or was previously cast. This is a bonus spell and does not effect the normally selected spell allowance available to the Cleric.

Skill Points** (One option must be selected):
2 Points= 2 skill points per level.
4 Points= 4 skill points per level.
6 Points= 6 skill points per level.
**- may be modified by intelligence score.
Class skills are listed in the core rulebook & may be modified by domain and/or by traits.

Channeling (One option must be selected):
2 points= reduced channeling. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 1 + your Charisma modifier. Feats which modify the number of channels per day, such as extra channel, only grants half the indicated number of bonus channels per day.
4 points= standard channeling as per description in core rulebook.

This is the rough framework I utilized in my campaign. It was tested by numerous players and adopted by some in their own campaigns and in this incarnation appeared to be balanced in normal game play. It may be useful for some of you out there and in my experience does allow for a well rounded character concept to be realized by the aspiring player(s).