Grey Sage's page

So far a split decision it would appear... any chance someone else (especially a developer) might weigh in?

My search fu is failing me today...

Looking at the table for creating a continuous use magic item based on a 1st level spell by a 1st level caster, should it be:

a) 1 (spell level) x 1 (caster level) x 2 (continuous) or is it:

b) 1 (spell level) x 1 (caster level) x 2 (continuous) x 4 (subtext 2 rounds/level duration)?

c) 1 (spell level) x 1 (caster level) x 4 (subtext 2 rounds/level duration)?

I have had people (with way too much time in the game) tell me it is a and others it is b and yet others, c...

Anyone have something that can be taken as canon rather than homebrew or I think?

I thought I saw a posting here several years back that it was c...

Help appreciated.

I will certainly check out 2e, but will probably only do so in order to pick out the best parts (if there are any) and will then incorporate them into my 1e games.

Reasons for doing so:

1 Really enjoy the 1e/3.5/d20 style of play
2 Have been playing the game since 1974 and do not wish, at this time, to learn a new system (which from everything I have read is what this will be, just old labels slapped onto new mechanics)
3 Have enough 1e/3.5/d20 stuff to last me until my grandson has grandkids... :)
4 There will probably be LOTS of 3 party publishers still doing 1e for years.

I will be downloading the playtest materials when they are released and checking things out, but doubt I will be 'wowwed' enough to convert to the new system when it comes out.

I am happy for the people that are excited about getting a new system. However, I moved to Pathfinder because it was an evolution of the gaming system I loved. It was firmly grounded (about 90% commonality) in the gaming system I had played since 1974 even as that gaming system evolved and changed.

So why am I not doing the same with PF2e...? Because from the list of changes for the playtest it is more of a 'let's streamline things' sort of edition. Which means (to my mind) dumb down things. Just my perception, could be wrong.

I also hate to see Paizo going the route of Wizards. Bringing out a new edition of course increases their revenue stream. Sell all the stuff again, right? To my mind, wrong! People have invested thousands of dollars in their interest/hobby and now suddenly, that gets sidelined. Why? Has there been an overwhelming outcry for a new game system? For an improved one (that has little commonality with the existing system save for using the same labels with spiffy new and improved mechanics *read changed here*)? I don't know, I am not a part of the Paizo customer service department but again I don't think so. I go to the Cons and the PFS players there have not been screaming to have all of their characters (which have taken years to advance to where they are) nerfed or rebuilt. Just the opposite actually.

As a corporate decision, I get it. But please, don't try to sell me on how great this is going to be. That is something we have seen already (4th edition anyone?) and it is insulting.

So again, happy for everyone that is excited about a new 'edition' but think it will ultimately be a new system. Which I have no interest in.

How much is my no interest? Well I was going to go to PaizoCon again but why bother? PFS play is going to take a major hit due to this change in a few months one way or another... so no need to bother with trying to get in some PFS play.

Some games reach a point where they do not need to be improved merely expanded and appreciated. As an example, I offer Monopoly. Played it as a kid, still play it occasionally with friends and plan on playing it with my grandkids... Because it is just fun. Always has been, probably always will be.

Winding this up, I would like to thank Paizo for a great 10 years and wish them luck. But they will not be getting any more of my money save perhaps some miniatures now and then. Between the stuff they have released and the wealth of 3rd Party Publishers out there who have been supported PF1e for the past 10 years, I suppose I have enough material to last me for a VERY long time.

The create demiplane spells are probably the best way to go...

Using a custom crafter build (feats that reduce time and cost) you can get your crafting time/costs down.

The point was made that crafting at high levels can break a game. This has always been the case since the 3.5 rules came out. There are steps a GM can take to reduce the likelihood of that happening... first and foremost talk with the player. If that is not enough remember that each settlement (from thorp to metropolis) has a limit on how much magic is available there. This also means that your crafter is limited to how much he can sell (and at what price). I recommend the GM giving them a percentage of what is possible (level + d? whatever you like).

The GM can also tax any crafting, require the crafter to be a member in good standing with a guild or subguild of crafters.

A question I would like answered is in regard to flowing time: how would it stack with multiple castings of create demiplane?

Just curious if anyone has converted the 3.5 theurgeme from Stormwrack to PF ship stats yet?

Ok... let's see if we can get one of the BIG BRAINS to answer this rather than bandying it about among ourselves...

A noble drow gets feather fall as a spell-like ability; spell-like abilities require a standard action to activate UNLESS it says otherwise in the spell DESCRIPTION. Nothing in the description (section) of feather fall states nothing about the immediacy of the action (that is actually part of the casting section).

Not going to bandy about this section and that section... Just a firm straight forward answer (hopefully from someone like James Jacobs, ie a BIG BRAIN)...

Is the activation of the noble drow's feather fall ability considered an immediate action (ie., he has a standard action remaining) or is it a standard action (ie., no standard action remaining)? I ask because if it is the first he can effectively use two standard actions in the round (feather fall and something else even another spell-like ability) while if it is the second, he is much more limited in what he can do?

Bueller? Bueller? Er, I mean Big Brain, Big Brain...

I was just reviewing these posts and thought I would add the following...

Using the Magnificent Mansion and Permanency is not really germaine since the Permanency spell has a list of which spells it affects. And while a GM could certainly (as I have done) add spells to that list, I think the OP would be better served creating a magic item (with MM as a construction requirement). This would allow for modifications as desired and also help keep the costs down somewhat.

In one of the games I am currently running, the wizard character is researching an item similar to the valise from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. What she will end up with is a permanent demiplane linked to an ordinary looking valise (2' x 3' x 3'). The interior can be customized and made permanent (via permanency) through either the use of the Create Demiplane, Greater Create Demiplane, or Lesser Create Demiplane (Ultimate Magic).

Some might not be comfortable carrying around a piece of luggage... there are several ways around this... illusions or a morphic ability similar to that which can be added to a weapon.

I think that VRMH is on the right track here with regards to the Doppelganger Simulacrum...

It is basically a snapshot of the creator at the time it is made. It does not age except for the time the creator animates it. I think it is better in some ways than a clone and less powerful in others.

In some regards it is like a part time simulacrum (cf. simulacrum spell); except that it is not animate at all times, again merely when the creator is 'driving' so to speak.

Additionally within my own campaign at home, have seen this used as part of a reoccurring villain VERY successfully especially since the first few times it happened, the party was not quite sure what was going on.

Chris,

Thanks for the update; some of my players were just asking me about it last week... Perfect timing on your part.

I was curious if anyone has noticed any additions to either hallow or unhallow with regard to spells that can be tied to the original spell from any of the newer products.

If not, any suggestions?

Quick question:

As written, the burst of light spell says:

'This spell fills the area with a brilliant flash of shimmering light. Creatures in the area are blinded for 1d4 rounds, or dazzled for 1d4 rounds if they succeed at a Reflex save. Evil creatures in the area of the burst take 1d4 points of damage per caster level (max 5d4), whether they succeed at the Reflex save or not.'

The question is this... Would a sightless or blind EVIL creature be totally immune to this spell or would it be immune only to the blinding/dazzling effects that is allowed a Reflex save?

My thought is this, the 'light' descriptor applies to the blinding and dazzling effects and allows a Reflex save; a blind or sightless target would not need to make the Reflex save.

The 'good' descriptor applies to evil (specifically) and even if the creature cannot see the burst, is still affected.

Please weigh in on this.

Sarrick,

Were you planning on updating this sheet?

Or have you come up with something better?

Quick question:

A grimspawn tiefling wizard has death knell (as a spell-like ability) instead of Fiendish sorcery; does he use his Int modifier when casting? Or since death knell is normally a cleric spell does he use his Wis modifier?

At 7th level, war drummers get craft magic arms and armor instead of lore master. What do they get in PFS?

So this came up in another thread. How many GMs out there care if the PCs thoroughly crush the NPCs? If you care, are you in the anti-tactics camp? Anti-power gamer camp? Anti-PC optimization camp?

I personally don't care at all. I'm still getting my table credit and 100% chronicle sheet.

Does anyone else find the combination of 9-level spell caster, spontaneous summons, wild shape, and 2nd PC in the form of animal companion to be very overpowered? Particularly for PFS games?

I'm guessing most of the regulars missed this post because I went straight to advice:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qpuk?PFS-roguelorewarden

I currently have an elven lorewarden/rogue that is using an elven curve blade. She is sitting at lorewarden 2/rogue 1 and has blind-fight, toughness, power attack, combat expertise, and improved feint as feats. I was going to get finesse rogue at character level 4 with the rogue trick and click my DEX up to 18.

After researching the elven curve blade, I'm torn as to which direction to take this character. Any input?

This is a derivative of the LoC thread. I derailed a bit with this topic.

I don't quite understand the criteria for banning say the master summoner but not the druid, or at least nerfing its ability to fill the table with summons.

Similarly, I don't see banning LoC when there are magical linage: shocking grasp magi running around.

I find the warpriest has many of the same problems as a melee cleric: action economy when the battle starts.

My proposal would be to make the warpriest a derivative of the magus, and give the warpriest the ability to cast spells on himself when he strikes a foe; somewhat like a reverse spellstrike.

Also, give them interesting abilities in the forms of "divine arcanas" just like the magus has.

At the conclusion of a PFS scenarios, is the party allowed to hang around one more evening to allow the party cleric to cast restorative spells on people the next day? Or do clerics have to leave spell slots open for this?

So I want to make a summoner as my next GM baby for PFS. I am liking the idea of an aasimar summoner, but I really didn't want to do the whole "little girl with big monster" schtick. Any ideas?

I am just astounded at the amount of angsting and effort being put in over money. In my estimation, broken builds and lack of difficulty in playing up are way more of a culprit in this situation than the amount of cash being flung around. Thoughts?

This came up in the animal companion thread, because I consider animal companions significantly overpowered for PFS play. Compare the stat line of an animal companion to a 20 point build PC and combine that with 2 HD to start, and I really think they are too much for a "class feature". (The control debate does not change the mathematical reality of them)

But the animal companion is just one way to have an optimized character. There are insane dpr fighter archers, monks with +35 grapple checks, etc. How much optimization do people feel like is necessary and/or desirable for PFS play? The scenarios aren't even that hard.

Personally, I find that just one or two optimized characters can ruin the scenario for the rest of the table by making all the encounters trivial. I find that this is still true for season 4.

So optimizers have proven their point. They can still wreck season 4 trivially. Or is that the intent? I simply don't really understand. Please provide feedback.

So let's get off the AC thing and think about something more universal. In general, I like the rewards system for PFS. I have even completely gotten over the lack of access to item creation.

Of the three methods of loot dispersion, though, I feel like the whole "on the chronicle sheet" method needs a little examining.

In general, I find cash money on hand to be a much larger obstacle than the maximum price of item I can buy. This is true even for my Osirion PC, with only about a 60% success rate for faction quests. Does anyone seriously run lower than 60%? Just curious.

Anyway, I was thinking it might be a cool thing to make the item on the chronicle sheets maybe 15% less than the going rate just as a perk from actually buying it off the sheet instead of the universal fame store.

An alternative idea would be to include more unique items, but that seems like a lot more paperwork.

Thoughts?

There is a pretty serious thread in the PFS section of the boards about animal companions. During this discussion, there is now a question of who ultimately is in control of an animal companion? Is it an NPC? Does it matter that it is a class feature? Is it technically under the control of the DM, who then usually "farms it out" to the PC to whom it is a class feature of? Or is it inappropriate for DM's to control them?

A ruling on this would be very useful, since everything in PFS is supposed to be RAW, and nothing homebrewed. Obviously, this is not such a quandry in a homebrew, since the DM has considerably more power to make this call in that situation.

One member of our PFS groups insists that the improved damage evolution for the eidolon follows the same die progression as improved natural attack. The rest of us think that it follows the die progression of the weapon chart.

I have pointed out threads on these forums that specifically refer to these two abilities being different, and even stacking, but he insists that the people on these forums are "interpreting it incorrectly".

Can I get a ruling on this to stop the quarreling in our group?

I have made an axe and shield dwarf for PFS that does not have dump stats. Consequently, he's got a dex of 12 and does not qualify for two weapon fighting. What are the best things people think can be done with axe and shield that does not involve two weapon fighting?

Where are the rules covering maximum stats allowed in PFS? I can't seem to find them.

What is the procedure if I played in a sessions, and have the sheet for it, but it was never entered online?

I know there is a world of difference in PFS between mini-maxed characters and more "regular" characters. However, I find that my regular characters are often overshadowed in many combats by animal companions!

Given point build limitations, and the low NPC quality of many PFS encounters, the animal companions are nearly as effective as a PC.

I'm wondering what possible solutions people have considered other than outright banning animal companions from PFS. I mean, they banned one of my favorite mechanisms: item creation. That's fine, but druids and cavaliers still get their super pets? Any ideas?